LIBRARY 

PRINCETON,  N  J. 


BX    7231     .W35    1856 

Wallace,  David  A.  1826-1883 

The  theology  of  New  England 


THE 


Cjjdfagg  jof  flelu  (fetgtafo 


ATTEMPT   TO    EXHIBIT  THE   DOCTRINES  NOW  PREVALENT 

IN  THE  ORTHODOX  CONGREGATIONAL   CHURCHES 

OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


BY  DAVID  A.  WALLACE, 

Boston. 

WITH    AN    INTRODUCTION 

BY  DANIEL  DANA,  D.  D. 


BOSTON: 
CROCKER     AND     BREWSTER 

47,  Washington  Street. 
1856. 


Entered  according  to  an  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856,  by 

CROCKER  AND   BREWSTER, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office   of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


ADVERTISEMENT 


In  the  following  pages,  the  author  has  attempted  to  state 
the  Theology  prevalent  in  the  Congregational  Churches  of 
New  England  usually  styled  "  orthodox."  His  aim  has 
been  to  aid  inquirers,  whether  in  New  England  or  out  of  it, 
who  have  not  access  to  the  original  sources  of  information, 
in  coming  to  a  knowledge  of  the  facts.  While  he  has 
been  careful  to  ascertain  the  truth,  and  state  it  clearly,  he 
cannot  flatter  himself,  that  he  has  perfectly  succeeded. 
Any  mistakes,  however,  into  which  he  has  fallen,  when 
pointed  out,  he  will  be  most  happy  to  correct. 


INTRODUCTION. 


It  is  generally  admitted  as  a  fact,  that  the 
Scriptures  of  God  utter  their  great  and  saving 
truths  in  much  simplicity  and  plainness.  jy±ra- 
-£!§«-,  it  is  confessed,  are  not  excluded;  but  these 
tttimd-t^  are  propounded,  not  so  much  to  our  rea- 
son, as  to  an  unquestioning  and  child-like  faith. 
Far  from  obscuring  the  doctrines  at  large,  they 
set  them  in  their  purest  light,  and  reveal  them  in 
their  heavenly  beauty,  and  glory,  and  harmony. 

Yet,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  their  very 
simplicity  has  proved  a  fruitful  occasion  of  their 
being  misunderstood  and  misrepresented.  Specu- 
lative men,  men  of  acute  minds,  and  reasoning 
talents,  coming  to  the  Bible,  and  finding  there 
nothing  which  a  well-instructed  child  cannot  un- 
derstand nearly  as  well  as  themselves,  are  dissatis- 
fied and  disgusted.  Hence  philosophy  is  summon- 
ed to  supply  the  defects,  and  adorn  the  artless- 
ness,  of  scripture.  But  the  attempt  is  fatal.  By 
these  devices,  men's  minds  are  unhinged,  reason 
takes   the  place   of  faith,  and  endless  doubts,  and 


xtMyt&L 


K^J  4<7n^it*4 


l&zt^ 


6 


misgivings  are  substituted  for  positive  and  satis- 
fying certainty.  Breaking  loose  from  the  eternal 
truths  of  God,  men  are  seduced  into  a  labyrinth  of 
interminable  and  destructive  error. 

When  we  read  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  we 
find  that  he  rebuked  this  arrogant  species  of  phi- 
losophy, viewing  it  as  eminently  and  irreconcila- 
bly hostile  to  the  pure  truths  of  the  gospel.  In 
one  passage,  he  brands  it  with  the  epithet  of 
science  falsely  so  called.  And  most  justly.  For 
what  a  wretched  thing  is  that  science  which  un- 
derstands every  thing  but  the  truth  of  God,  and 
the  way  of  human  salvation.  How  mis-called  is 
that  philosophy  which  arrays  itself  against  divine 
and  everlasting  truth.  Genuine  philosophy  is  mo- 
dest and  unassuming.  It  delights  to  open  its  eyes 
to  the  light  of  heaven.  It  finds  its  most  honora- 
ble and  delightful  place  at  the  feet  of  Jesus. 
While  the  proud  and  self-sufficient  reasoner,  feel- 
ing no  need  of  divine  instruction,  turns  away  from 
heavenly  light,  and  clinging  to  the  feeble  taper  of 
his  own  reason,  wanders  in  the  path  leading  to 
eternal  darkness  and  eternal  death. 

These  remarks  are  strongly  confirmed  by  a  sig- 
nal passage  in  the  New  Testament  history.  The 
great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  spent  some  days  at 
Athens,  a  city  which  was  not  only  the  boasted 
light  of  Greece,  but  the  seat  of  a  great  portion  of 
the  science,  art,  literature,  and  refinement  which 
then  existed  in  the  world.  And  what  was  the 
Apostle's   success   in    this   favored    spot  ?     Less, 


probably,  than  in  any  other  which  was  visited 
with  his  preaching.  For  while  in  some  regions, 
comparatively  dark  and  uncultivated,  he  witnessed 
many  trophies  of  divine  grace,  his  success  in 
Athens  was  so  small,  that  a  few  scattered  indi- 
viduals comprise  the  whole  catalogue  of  his  con- 
verts. 

In  modern  times,  the  experiment  of  the  power 
of  reason,  when  divorced  from  Revelation,  has 
been  conspicuously  made  in  Germany.  In  that 
favored  land,  the  birth-place  of  Luther  and  the 
Reformation,  who  would  not  have  wished  that 
pure  religion  might  have  lingered  for  many  a  cen- 
tury ?  But  such  wishes  have  been  sadly  disap- 
pointed. About  a  century  since,  there  arose  there 
certain  philosophers  who,  closing  their  eyes  to  the 
light  of  Heaven,  and  trampling  on  the  teachings 
of  the  Bible,  determined  to  make  a  religion  for 
themselves,  and  for  the  community.  They  were 
men  not  destitute  of  genius,  or  of  learning,  or  of 
research.  Still  less  were  they  wanting  in  self- 
confidence.  But  they  were  awfully  destitute  of 
that  humility  to  which  Heaven  is  used  to  confine 
its  holy  light  and  aid.  Their  project  was  attended 
with  fatal  success.  Being  followed  by  a  long  line 
of  successors  of  their  own  spirit,  they  poured  dark- 
ness on  the  public  mind;  darkness  which  might  be 
felt,  and  which  is  actually  felt  at  the  present  day. 
Under  its  baleful  influence,  men  of  knowledge  and 
refinement  have  yielded  themselves  to  religious 
absurdities  which  would  disgrace  the  lowest  state 


8 


of  society.  Germany  witnesses  at  this  day,  in  her 
Universities,  her  Theological  Seminaries,  and  in 
her  pulpits,  men  conspicuous  for  infidelity.  The 
consequence  of  this  state  of  things  is  natural  and 
inevitable.  The  whole  land  is  deluged  with  error 
and  infidelity,  with  vices  and  crimes.  We  are  re- 
cently informed,  indeed,  of  some  appearance  of  a 
revulsion.  It  is  announced  that  men  of  sound 
minds  and  sound  theology  are  lifting  a  powerful 
voice  against  the  errors  and  abomination  of  the 
time  ;  and  that  they  find  listeners  too.  Still  may 
it  not  require  a  century,  or  even  more,  to  repair 
the  ravages  which  have  been  made  on  the  cause 
of  truth,  and  the  intellects  of  the  community  ? 

Hence  arises  a  question  of  no  common  interest. 
What  is  the  influence  which  German  theology 
has  exercised  for  years,  and  is  now  exercising,  on 
the  theology  of  our  own  country  ?  Of  the  reality 
of  this  influence,  and  of  its  extent,  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  The  simple  fact  that  our  young  preachers, 
either  at  the  commencement  of  their  course,  or  in 
their  preparation  for  it,  are  so  prone  to  resort  to 
that  country,  speaks  an  intelligible  language.  On 
this  subject,  we  need  not  adopt  a  strain  of  indis- 
criminate reproof.  A  variety  of  motives  and  of 
circumstances  may  operate  in  the  case.  The  his- 
tory, geography  and  chronology  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
their  criticism,  literature  and  antiquities,  all  have 
their  importance  and  use.  In  these  departments, 
the  German  religionists  have  exhibited  indefatiga- 
ble  activity,    and    amassed    immense    stores    of 


9 


knowledge.  Of  these  accumulations,  religious 
students  may  safely  and  wisely  avail  themselves. 
Yet  if,  in  these  pursuits,  their  minds  should  be  in- 
sensibly drawn  away  from  the  great  and  distin- 
guishing doctrines  of  scripture,  or  should  receive 
perverse  or  indistinct  impressions  of  them,  the  evil 
would  be  immense.  The  largest  acquisitions  of 
such  knowledge  would  but  ill  compensate  for  the 
want  or  loss  of  the  essential  and  saving  truths  of 
God's  word. 

The  attribute  of  Scripture  which  preeminently 
stamps  its  value  and  importance,  is  its  Inspiration. 
Here  lies  the  basis  of  all  the  instruction  ;  the  hope 
and  comfort  which  it  imparts.  To  renounce  this 
precious  attribute,  is  to  give  up  ourselves  to  end- 
less doubt  and  blank  despair.  While  to  have  our 
faith  in  it  shaken,  or  impaired,  is  to  want  the  first 
and  most  essential  qualification  of  christian  in- 
structors. Surely  no  one  will  contend  that  our 
young  men,  destined  to  the  ministry,  and  subject- 
ed to  the  influences  we  have  described,  are  in  no 
danger  of  contamination. 

Another  source  of  danger  to  our  country  is 
found  in  the  introduction  of  German  writings. 
These,  within  a  few  years,  have  been  imported  to 
our  land  in  a  profusion  formerly  unknown.  For 
about  a  century  past,  Germany  has  been  the 
grand  corrupter  of  Europe  and  the  world.  By  its 
novels  and  poetry,  and  false  philosophy,  by  its  ra- 
tionalism, and  pantheism,  and  atheism,  (for  pan- 
theism  is    substantially  atheism,)    it   has   spread 


10 


havock  through  the  morals  and  religion  of  Europe. 
For  a  long  period,  however,  this  great  and  tre- 
mendous evil  was  much  confined  to  the  more 
speculative  and  literary  circles.  But  in  more  re- 
cent time,  the  language  being  better  understood, 
and  translations  being  abundantly  multiplied,  the 
evil  has  had  a  far  more  extensive  diffusion,  and 
found  its  way  to  all  classes  of  society.  And  it 
cannot  be  sufficiently  deplored,  that  the  case  is 
substantially  the  same  in  the  country  in  which  we 
live.  Formerly,  these  skeptical  and  infidel  no- 
tions were  chiefly  broached  in  books  designed  for 
speculative  readers.  But  more  recently,  they  find 
a  place  in  writings  intended  for  all  classes,  not 
excepting  the  most  ignorant  and  uncultivated. 
So  that,  as  we  are  become  a  nation  of  readers, 
these  last  bid  fair  to  become  as  thorough  pro- 
ficients in  infidelity  as  their  superiors.  And  it 
must  be  confessed  that  in  this  school,  they  are 
often  willing  and  docile  students.  Few,  probably, 
are  aware  of  that  awful  deterioration  of  religious 
views,  feelings  and  practice  which  has  swept  over 
New  England  within  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years, 
and  which  threatens  to  sweep  away  every  thing 
worthy  the  name  of  religion.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain. Unbelief  is  the  order  of  the  day;  the  fatal 
malady  of  the  age.  That  religion  which  our  pil- 
grim fathers  brought  with  them,  which  they  cher- 
ished as  their  dearest  possession,  and  which  they 
grasped  to  their  hearts  in  life  and  in  death,  is,  by 
thousands  of  their  descendants,  ignored,  or  denied, 
or  treated  with  neglect  and  contempt. 


11 


It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  great  and  distin- 
guishing doctrines  of  the  gospel  are,  by  thousands 
of  our  christian  community,  disbelieved  and  con- 
tradicted ;  perhaps  despised  and  ridiculed.  Other 
thousands  there  are,  who,  at  some  period  of  their 
lives,  have  solemnly  declared  their  belief  in  them. 
Their  hearts,  however,  were  never  truly  reconciled 
to  them.  And  finding  that  they  are  much  op- 
posed, especially  in  the  fashionable  world,  and 
that  much  can  be  plausibly  said  and  reasoned 
against  their  truth,  they  rejoice  to  employ  these 
things  as  pretexts  for  discarding  them  altogether, 
and  thus  escaping  their  humbling  and  painful  in- 
fluence. 

A  third  class  value  themselves  on  holding  their 
judgment  in  suspense  between  these  doctrines  and 
their  opposites.  This,  they  contend,  is  dictated 
by  candor  and  impartiality.  They  hold  that  on 
these  topics,  the  Bible  itself  is  obscure  and  indeci- 
sive ;  not  fitted  to  give  satisfaction  to  inquiring 
minds.  Yet  what  is  this  but  virtually  to  allege 
that  the  Book  of  God  has  been  given  us  in  vain ; 
that  while  possessing  a  Revelation  from  God,  we 
need  another  revelation  to  explain  it,  and  that  that 
inspired  volume,  which  was  designed  to  guide  us 
to  truth  and  heaven,  is  wholly  incompetent  to  its 
object,  and  has  utterly  failed  in  its  effect. 

We  may  not  neglect  a  fourth  class  of  the  relig- 
ious in  our  community.  It  is  composed  of  those 
who  firmly  believe,  and  cordially  love,  the  distin- 
guishing doctrines  of  the  gospel — doctrines  at  once 


12 


lying  at  its  foundation,  and  manifest  on  the  sur- 
face. On  these  doctrines  hang  their  immortal 
hopes,  and  from  them  they  derive  their  best  conso- 
lations. At  the  same  time,  they  are  surrounded 
by  multitudes  by  whom  these  truths  are  ignored, 
or  disregarded,  or  opposed,  or  treated  with  scorn. 
Yet  they  withhold  from  these  truths  their  open  and 
vigorous  support.  Here  is  an  inconsistency  which 
we  cannot  sufficiently  lament.  And  surely  it  will 
not  always  last.  These  good  men  must  ultimate- 
ly come  forward,  and,  bitterly  lamenting  their  past 
defects,  throw  all  their  weight  and  influence  on 
the  side  of  God's  despised  truth.  May  Heaven 
grant  that  this  "  consummation  "  so  "  devoutly  to 
be  wished"  may  not  come  too  late. 

There  is  a  class  of  religionists  in  our  community 
yet  unmentioned.  They  hold  that  Christians  at 
large  are  generally  agreed ;  at  least  that  they 
maintain  no  discrepancies  in  views  which  may 
not  be  easily  merged.  Let  mutual  candor  and 
conciliation  be  cherished,  and  all  will  be  well. 
To  contend  earnestly  for  particular  doctrines,  is 
needless  and  useless,  and  tending  only  to  evil. 
Let  this  disposition  subside,  and  Christians  will 
remain  in  harmony,  and  the  church  in  peace. 

This  train  of  thought  is  extremely  plausible. 
But  it  is  not  more  plausible  than  dangerous.  It 
is  proper,  then,  to  give  it  a  careful  scrutiny. 

The  great  and  absorbing  question  before  the 
christian  public  is  this  :  do  the  doctrines  which 
have  been  fashionable,  and  which   are  rapidly  in- 


13 


creasing  in  prevalence  and  extent,  agree  with  the 
oracles  of  truth  ?  In  other  words,  are  they  the 
same  doctrines  which  the  church  has,  in  every  age, 
found  in  the  Bible  ? 

It  has  been  well  remarked  that  deceit  lies  in 
generals.  To  come  at  the  truth,  then,  we  must 
descend  to  particulars. 

The  Bible  declares,  explicitly  and  uniformly  de- 
clares the  entire  and  awful  depravity  of  man;  a 
depravity,  which,  descending  from  the  first  pro- 
genitor of  the  race,  has  infected  all  his  offspring* 
This  is  the  doctrine  which  pervades  the  Scripture 
from  beginning  to  end.  The  doctrine  is  strictly 
fundamental.  It  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  structure 
on  which  human  salvation  is  built.  It  gives  char- 
acter, complexion  and  features  to  all  the  doctrines 
and  provisions  of  the  gospel.  It  directly  follows, 
that  as  this  doctrine  is  received  or  rejected,  the 
gospel  itself  is  received  or  rejected.  It  cannot 
then  be  denied,  that  on  this  very  spot,  error,  es- 
sential error  is  chargeable  on  the  modern  theology. 
It  repudiates  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  It 
denies  and  discards  original  sin  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  has  been  understood  and  maintained  by 
the  church  of  God  in  all  ages.  That  there  may 
be  no  mistake  on  this  vital  point,  we  quote  from 
the  writings  of  a  professor  in  the  most  important 
theological  seminary  of  New  England  ;  a  gentle- 
man well  known  as  the  chief  Expounder  and  Ad- 
vocate of  the  new  system.  In  a  note  appended  to 
his  Convention  Sermon,  he  writes  as  follows: 


14 


"  Is  it  said,  that  a  passive  nature,  existing  ante- 
cedently to  all  free  action,  is  itself,  strictly,  literally 
sinful  ?  Then  we  must  have  a  new  language, 
and  speak,  in  prose,  of  moral  patients  as  well  as 
moral  agents,  of  men  besinned  as  well  as  sinners, 
(for  ex  vi  termini  sinners  as  well  as  runners  must 
be  active  ;)  we  must  have  a  new  conscience  which 
can  decide  on  the  moral  character  of  dormant  con- 
ditions, as  well  as  of  elective  preferences  ;  a  new 
law,  prescribing  the  very  make  of  the  soul,  as  well 
as  the  way  in  which  this  soul,  when  made,  shall 
act,  and  a  law  which  we  transgress  (for  sin  is  '  a 
transgression  of  the  law ')  in  being  before  birth 
passively  mis-shapen ;  we  must  also  have  a  new 
Bible,  delineating  a  judgment  scene  in  which 
some  will  be  condemned,  not  only  on  account  of 
the  deeds  which  they  have  done  in  the  body,  but 
also  for  having  been  born  with  an  involuntary 
proclivity  to  sin,  and  others  will  be  rewarded  not 
only  for  their  conscientious  love  to  Christ,  but  also 
for  a  blind  nature  inducing  that  love  ;  we  must,  in 
fine,  have  an  entirely  different  class  of  moral  sen- 
timents, and  have  them  disciplined  by  Inspiration 
in  an  entirely  different  manner  from  the  present ; 
for  now  the  feelings  of  all  true  men  revolt  from 
the  assertion,  that  a  poor  infant  dying,  if  we  may 
suppose  it  to  die,  before  its  first  wrong  preference, 
merits  for  its  unavoidable  nature,  that  eternal  pun- 
ishment, which  is  threatened,  and  justly,  against 
the  smallest  real  sin.  Although  it  may  seem  para- 
doxical to  affirm  that  'a  man  may  believe  a  pro- 


15 


position  which  he  knows  to  be  false,'  it  is  yet 
charitable  to  say  that  whatever  any  man  may 
suppose  himself  to  believe,  he  has  in  fact  an 
inward  conviction,  that  'all  sin  consists  in  sin- 
ning.' " 

It  is  needful  here  to  remark,  though  the  remark 
is  uttered  with  inexpressible  pain,  that  the  author 
of  the  foregoing  paragraph  has  repeatedly  declared 
his  assent  to  the  Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter 
Catechism,  and  as  often  solemnly  engaged  to  con- 
form his  instructions  to  that  Summary  of  doctrine; 
expressly  discarding  the  doctrine  of  Pelagianism. 
It  is  needless  to  add,  that  if  the  essence  of  Pela- 
gianism consists  in  the  denial  of  the  native  de- 
pravity of  man,  that  signal  error  is  plainly  couched 
in  the  paragraph  cited. 

It  is  not  denied  that  the  term  depravity  is  ad- 
mitted into  the  new  theology.  But,  wonderful  as 
it  may  seem,  it  is  represented  as  a  sinless  deprav- 
ity. But  who  sees  not  that  this  is  an  abuse  of 
terms  ?  But  why  should  such  an  abuse  be  admit- 
ted, tending  only  to  vitiate  and  confound  language, 
and  to  darken  a  subject  which  demands  the  ut- 
most plainness  and  perspicuity? 

With  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  that  of 
Regeneration  holds  a  close  alliance.  Indeed  they 
involve  each  other.  Nor  is  it  less  evident  that  the 
views  entertained  of  the  one,  will  greatly  modify 
our  views  of  the  other.  This  we  should  naturally 
anticipate  ;  and  this  is  found  to  be  the  literal  fact. 
If  man  is  but  partially  depraved,  a  partial   regen- 


16 


eration  is  all  which  he  needs.  If  only  nominally 
depraved,  a  nominal  regeneration  is  sufficient  to 
meet  his  case.  Accordingly,  the  advocates  of  the 
new  doctrine,  while  they  admit  the  term  regenera- 
tion, eviscerate  it  of  all  its  meaning  and  force. 
They  do  not  admit  that  it  involves  either  a  holy 
change,  or  a  change  of  nature.  As  to  the  former 
point,"  contending,  as  they  do,  that  all  holiness  as 
well  as  sin,  consists  in  action  ;  and  allowing,  as 
they  must,  that  all  holy  action  in  the  creature  is 
preceded  by  regeneration,  they  cannot  surely  find 
holiness  in  regeneration  itself.  Maintaining  that 
Adam,  as  he  came  from  his  Creator's  hand,  was 
not  holy  till  he  began  to  act,  must  they  not  main- 
tain, that  those  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  are  not 
holy  till  they  begin  to  act?  As  to  the  other 
point,  they  deny  that  human  beings  are,  properly 
speaking,  depraved  in  nature.  Where  then  is  the 
necessity,  where  even  the  possibility  of  their  being 
regenerated?  And  what  a  strange  and  nonde- 
script kind  of  regeneration  must  that  be,  which 
passes  on  creatures  not  in  their  nature  depraved 
and  sinful. 

As  to  the  theory  that  all  sin  and  holiness  con- 
sist in  action,  or  exercise,  though  it  assumes  the 
proud  name  of  philosophy,  we  submit  that  it  is  as 
contrary  to  sound  philosophy  as  to  common  sense 
and  the  Bible.  There  are  certain  states  or  con- 
ditions of  the  mind  which  belong,  not  to  the  class 
of  volitions,  but  of  principles,  propensities,  dispo- 
sitions, or  affections.     But  they  are  not,  therefore, 


17 


divested  of  a  decidedly  moral  character.  It  would 
be  absurd  to  contend  that  pride  is  a  volition.  Yet 
pride,  by  universal  consent,  is  the  most  odious  of 
vices.  Nor  would  it  be  easy  to  prove  that  humil- 
ity is  a  volition.  Yet  in  the  judgment  of  God 
himself,  humility  is  the  loveliest  of  virtues. 

The  doctrine  of  Justification  by  faith  has  ever 
been  viewed  by  the  church,  in  its  best  days,  as  a 
doctrine  of  the  clearest  evidence,  and  the  deepest 
interest.  What  the  great  Luther  thought  of  its 
importance  is  well  known.  Our  puritan  fathers 
guarded  it  with  a  sleepless  vigilance,  and  zeal- 
ously resisted  every  attempt  to  corrupt  its  purity. 
It  has  not  been  altogether  so  with  their  descend- 
ants. Within  a  century  or  less,  this  doctrine  has 
lost  much  of  the  attention  and  respect  which  it' 
claims.  Many  divines  of  some  reputation  have 
treated  it  with  great  neglect.  Others,  it  should 
seem,  have  scarcely  found  it  in  the  Bible.  While 
others  have  manifested  a  wish  to  expunge  it  from 
the  list  of  christian  doctrines.  From  the  modern 
theology  it  has  experienced  much  disregard  and 
opposition.  The  treatment  which  it  has  recently 
received,  would,  had  it  appeared  half  a  century 
since,  have  been  regarded  with  astonishment,  not 
to  say  with  horror.  That  Christ  our  Savior,  be- 
ing man,  so  needed  obedience  for  himself  as  to 
have  no  merit  to  impart  to  his  believing  people; 
that  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  is  an  ab- 
surdity ;  and  that  men  must  look  to  their  own  ho- 
liness and  obedience   to  bring  them  to  heaven — 

2* 


18 


these  are  among  the  dreams  which  are  now  ex- 
tensively propagated.  Thus  the  proud  and  self- 
righteous  are  propped  up  in  their  own  imaginary 
goodness ;  and  thus  the  self-diffident  and  humble 
are  plunged  into  a  species  of  despondence,  and 
even  despair. 

It  is  much  to  be  wished,  that  those  who  deny, 
and  perhaps  denounce  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  to  his  posterity,  and  Christ's  righteousness  to 
his  believing  people,  would  carefully  study  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Romans.  Doubtless  they  would 
discover  that  these  doctrines  are  stamped  with 
the  same  divine  authority  ;  that  both  the  one  and 
the  other  are  equally  and  truly  doctrines  of  the 
Bible.     "  As  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment 

CAME  UPON  ALL  MEN  TO  CONDEMNATION  ;  EVEN  SO 
BY  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  ONE,  THE  FREE  GIFT 
CAME  UPON  ALL  MEN  UNTO  JUSTIFICATION  OF  LIFE. 
FOR  AS  BY  ONE  MAN'S  DISOBEDIENCE  MANY  WERE 
MADE  SINNERS,  SO  BY  THE  OBEDIENCE  OF  ONE  SHALL 
MANY    BE    MADE    RIGHTEOUS." 

We  have  no  satisfaction  in  multiplying  these 
reproofs,  though  some  of  our  remarks  may  appear 
unduly  severe.  But  there  is  still  a  topic  of  some 
interest  deserving  a  serious  attention. 

For  many  years  past,  the  subject  of  man's  abil- 
ity and  inability  has  been  much  discussed,  both  in 
the  sacred  desk  and  in  other  scenes  of  instruc- 
tion. Arguments  on  each  side,  almost  equally 
plausible,  and  almost  equally  valid,  are  arrayed 
in  mutual  opposition.    Still  the  debate  continues  ; 


19 


and  still  the  minds  of  men  remain  either  in  anx- 
ious uncertainty,  or  in  unreasonable  confidence. 

The  truth  is,  that  questions  on  this  subject  are 
much  less  likely  to  be  decided  by  philosophic  rea- 
soning, than  by  common  sense  and  the  Bible. 

Still  there  are  truths  in  the  case,  the  force  of 
which- most  candid  minds  will  admit.  That  all 
human  beings  are  under  immediate  and  everlast- 
ing obligations  to  repent  of  their  sins,  to  obey  the 
law  and  receive  the  gospel — that  there  is  no  ob- 
stacle in  the  way,  but  such  as  arises  from  their 
own  obstinacy  and  wickedness — and  that  their 
perdition,  if  they  finally  perish,  will  be  of  their 
own  procuring ;  these  are  unquestionable  facts. 

It  is  equally  unquestionable  that  sinners  lie 
wholly  at  the  mercy  of  God  ;  that  he  holds  their 
salvation  and  perdition  in  his  own  sovereign  hand  ; 
and  that  all  their  efforts  to  save  themselves  will 
be  utterly  abortive,  without  divine  and  omnipo- 
tent aid. 

Between  these  two  classes  of  propositions  there 
may  be  seeming  discrepancies.  But  they  are 
only  seeming.  All  truths  are  reconcilable  with 
all  other  truths.  What  appears  to  our  frail  minds 
to  be  discordant,  may  be  quite  otherwise  in  the 
eye  of  an  omniscient  God.  And  we  ourselves,  in 
a  future  state,  may  see  clear  and  satisfying  light, 
where  now  we  behold  only  impenetrable  dark- 
ness. 

The  propensity  of  the  present  day  seems  to  be 
to  magnify  human   power.     Thoughts  are  sported 


20 


on  this  subject,  obviously  irreconcilable  with 
Scripture  and  common  sense.  This  is  undoubt- 
edly a  serious  evil.  For  though  these  views 
seemingly  tend  to  excite  men  to  action,  their 
real  tendency  is  to  lull  them  into  sloth  and 
security.  Let  a  man  believe  that  his  salvation 
is  fully,  and  in  every  sense,  in  his  own  power, 
and  he  will  delay  the  disagreeable  task  to  a  more 
convenient  season.  He  will  become  proud,  self- 
sufficient,  and  careless.  It  is  worth  a  serious 
inquiry,  whether  that  recklessness  as  to  religion 
and  the  soul,  and  even  that  laxity  in  principles 
and  morals  which  so  lamentably  prevail  in  our 
day,  are  not  attributable  to  extravagant  views  of 
human  power  and  sufficiency. 

On  the  topic  thus  briefly  discussed,  there  arise 
some  reflections  too  important  to  be  neglected  or 
forgotten.  The  error  in  question  respecting  human 
ability  was,  in  former  times,  inculcated  by  minis- 
ters of  great  seriousness  and  fidelity — men  who, 
in  their  private  speculations,  cherished  sound  and 
scriptural  views  on  many  gospel  subjects ;  and 
who,  in  their  public  instructions,  uttered  many 
things  suited  to  alarm  the  fears,  and  awaken  the 
consciences,  of  the  impenitent.  But  the  case  is 
otherwise  now.  The  modern  theology  is  super- 
ficial and  unimpressive.  It  contains  little  which 
tends  either  to  awaken  the  consciences,  or  alarm 
the  fears  of  the  irreligious.  Of  course,  the  error  in 
question  is  left  unqualified  and  unchecked,  to  pro- 
duce its  disastrous  effects  on  the  minds  of  men, 
and  lead  them  insensibly  in  the  path  to  ruin. 


21 


Concerning  many  of  the  errors  which  we  have 
noted,  it  may  be  thought,  perhaps,  that  they  arise 
less  from  substantial  deviations,  than  from  mere 
changes  in  terminology.  But  to  this  grave  remark, 
we  reply  in  brief,  that  words  are  things.  A  slight 
change  of  terms  may  communicate  very  false  im- 
pressions. We  have  likewise  a  right  to  enter  a 
solemn  protest  against  a  new,  unauthorized  and 
inaccurate  use  of  language.  It  is  not  fit,  that  in 
this  way,  the  instructions  of  the  pulpit  should  be- 
come unintelligible,  the  minds  of  men  filled  with 
confusion,  and  the  religious  public  kept  in  a  state 
of  unceasing  agitation. 

But  perhaps  the  case  demands  an  attention  and 
statement  still  more  serious.  Can  it  be  for  a  mo- 
ment denied  that,  within  a  few  years,  words  have 
so  entirely  changed  their  meaning,  that  the  chris- 
tian pulpit  emits  darkness  rather  than  light  ?  Can 
it  be  denied  that  the  terms  Depravity,  Conversion, 
Regeneration,  Atonement,  Justification,  etc.,  have 
lost  their  original  sense,  and  assumed  a  meaning 
altogether  new  ?  Can  it  be  denied,  that  in  the 
principal  Theological  Seminary  of  New  England, 
the  religion  taught  is  depravity  without  sin,  regen- 
eration without  holiness,  and  justification  without 
the  righteousness  of  Christ?  Can  it  be  denied, 
that  pious  hearers  often  retire  from  the  sanctuary, 
and  from  the  instructions  of  a  preacher  whose 
leading  views  are  entirely  opposite  to  their  own, 
yet  honestly  believing  that  they  have  heard  the 
very  gospel  which  they  loved  ?     Can  it  be  denied, 


22 


that  different  classes  of  hearers,  ividely  distant  in 
sentiment,  have  each  come  away  in  the  confidence 
that  the  preacher  was  of  their  own  opinion  ? 

In  these  cases,  charity  would  perhaps  forbid  us 
to  suspect  that  the  preacher  has  harbored  a  direct 
intention  to  deceive.  Perhaps  his  aim  has  been 
to  exhibit  truths  so  modified  and  ornamented  as 
that  they  shall  neither  displace  the  tasteful  and 
philosophic,  nor  disgust  the  worldly,  nor  repel  the 
open  enemies  of  religion.  But  surely  it  cannot  be 
sufficiently  lamented,  that  the  pious  should  be  de- 
frauded of  the  food  on  which  they  feast  and  live, 
the  consciences  of  sinners  left  undisturbed,  the  un- 
believing confirmed  in  their  infidelity,  and  the 
hypocrite  and  self-deceived  encouraged  in  their 
ruinous  delusions. 

Where  are  the  Christians  who  have  occupied 
this  stage  for  twenty  or  thirty  years,  and  have  not 
witnessed  a  real  revolution  in  religion — in  its  doc- 
trinal views,  its  experience  and  its  practice  ?  The 
wide  and  perceptible  distance  once  existing  be- 
tween the  pious  and  the  impenitent  is  almost  an- 
nihilated. The  irreligious  are  prone  to  imagine 
that  they  are  half  as  good  as  Christians ;  the 
church,  instead  of  communicating  its  stamp  to  the 
world,  receives  from  the  world  its  own  stamp  ;  and 
the  really  pious  are  too  often  lost  in  the  crowd. 

The  decline  and  abandonment  of  the  truth,  so 
prevalent  and  undeniable,  have  unquestionably 
sunk  our  churches  into  a  sadly  depressed  condi- 
tion.    That  lukewarmness,   formality  and   awful 


23 


defections  are  'found  in  thousands  of  professed 
Christians  is  generally  admitted.  The  fact,  too, 
appears  to  be  generally  lamented.  It  is  one  of 
the  wonders  of  the  time,  that  the  close  connection 
that  exists  between  these  two  grand  evils,  seems 
to  be  rarely  traced  and  acknowledged.  Yet  how 
can  it  be  expected  that  evils  will  be  removed  until 
they  are  distinctly  seen — seen  in  their  causes  and 
connection,  as  well  as  in  their  magnitude  and  ag- 
gravations ?  Should  it  please  God,  in  his  holy 
sovereignty,  to  visit  our  community  with  the  in- 
fluences of  his  Spirit,  and  with  pure  revivals  of 
religion,  one  of  its  first  effects  would  be  found  in 
a  return  to  those  simple  gospel  truths,  which  were 
once  acknowledged  and  prized,  but  are  now  neg- 
lected and  scarcely  understood.  Should  it  please 
him,  on  the  other  hand,  to  awaken  a  general  and 
interested  attention  to  these  heaven-descended 
truths,  this  would  prove  an  auspicious  omen  that 
religion  itself  would  rise  from  its  depressions,  and 
richly  diffuse  around  us  its  sacred  and  saving  in- 
fluences. 

The  worthy  and  respected  Author  of  this  pam- 
phlet has  executed  a  task  of  no  common  impor- 
tance. He  has  presented  to  the  churches  a  view 
of  the  Theology  of  New  England  as  it  now  exists, 
together  with  the  means  and  steps  by  which  it 
has  arrived  at  its  present  position.  The  whole 
work  is  marked  with  great  care  and  accuracy  of 
investigation,  with  great  clearness  of  statement, 
and  with  a  candor  which  is  mingled  with  a  de- 


24 


cided  and  warm  attachment  to  the  pure  principles 
of  gospel  truth.  In  a  work  involving  such  exten- 
siveness  of  general  survey,  and  such  a  minute 
statement  of  particulars,  it  would  be  strange  in- 
deed, were  there  to  be  found  no  mistakes.  In  the 
present  case,  it  is  believed  there  are  few,  and  those 
of  small  importance. 

Mr.  Wallace  has  laid  our  New  England 
churches  under  great  obligations.  These  obliga- 
tions they  will  not  be  slow  to  acknowledge,  or  to 
appreciate.  His  pamphlet,  it  is  anticipated,  will 
excite  a  general  attention.  His  statement  will 
confirm  the  friends  of  truth,  and  will  furnish  mat- 
ter of  useful  reflection  to  inquirers  and  errorists. 

The  writer  of  this  Introduction  is  aware  that, 
by  his  present  and  former  communications  to  the 
public,  he  may  incur  the  suspicion  of  severity  to- 
wards his  christian  and  ministerial  brethren.  But 
he  pleads  innocence.  On  this  point,  he  can  appeal 
to  his  own  conscience,  and  he  hopes  also  to  his 
omniscient  Judge.  At  no  period  has  he  felt  more 
anxious  to  live  and  die  in  peace  with  every  human 
being.  Yet  feeling  that  his  final  account  is  near, 
he  is  anxious  to  spend  his  last  breath  in  defending 
the  truth  of  God,  and  in  opposing  the  errors  which 
threaten  its  subversion.  Conscious  that  he  is 
liable  to  error,  he  knows  that  the  same  liability  at- 
tends his  valued  brethren  who  differ  from  him  in 
judgment.  Nor  is  it  impossible,  that  when  he  shall 
have  retired  from  the  stage,  they  may  remember 
his  warnings,  with  regret  that  they  have  not  been 
regarded. 


25 


The  Theology  of  New  England  is  obviously  in 
a  state  of  transition.  What  is  the  point  at  which 
it  will  stop,  is  known  only  to  Him  who  knows  all 
things,  and  who  loves  his  church  with  an  affec- 
tion far  superior  to  that  of  the  best  of  its  friends. 
One  thing  is  certain.  Our  spiritual  condition  will 
soon  become  either  materially  better,  or  materially 
worse.  At  such  a  time,  there  are  reasons  enough 
for  fear  and  trembling,  for  sleepless  vigilance,  and 
active  exertion  ;  but  none  for  despair,  nor  even  for 
despondency.  He  who  sways  the  sceptre  of  the 
world,  sways  likewise  the  sceptre  of  the  Church, 
She  cannot  be  swallowed  and  lost  in  the  ocean> 
for  her  great  Pilot  is  at  the  helm.  Let  Christians 
shake  off  their  guilty  slumbers  ;  let  them  stand  in 
their  lot;  let  them  rouse  every  nerve  and  sinew  to 
active  exertion,  and  all  will  yet  be  well.     "  God  is 

OUR  REFUGE  AND  STRENGTH,  A  VERY  PRESENT  HELP 
IN  TROUBLE."  THEREFORE  WILL  NOT  WE  FEAR,. 
THOUGH  THE  EARTH  BE  REMOVED,  AND  THOUGH  THE 
MOUNTAINS  BE  CARRIED  INTO  THE  MIDST  OF  THE 
SEA. 

DANIEL  DANA. 


Newburyport,  Nov.  19,  1855. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  NEW  ENGLAND, 


"  The  Theology  of  New  England,"  say  the  Edi- 
tors of  the  Boston  Congregationalist,  "  is  not  one 
simple,  well-defined  system.  There  has  existed  as 
great  a  variety  among  the  New  England  divines, 
who  are  essentially  orthodox,  as  among  the  divines 
of  any  other  nation."*  This  fact  renders  it  very 
difficult  to  point  out,  clearly  and  definitely,  the 
principles  commonly  included  under  that  term. 
There  is  no  generally  received  creed,  which  em- 
braces and  authoritatively  exhibits  this  theology. 
We  must  look  for  it  in  works  on  divinity  usually 
regarded  as  standard,  in  labored  articles  of  re- 
views, newspaper  editorials,  decisions  of  councils, 
published  sermons,  confessions  of  faith,  and  such 
other  quarters  as  we  may  obtain  light  on  the  prin- 
ciples actually  received  and  taught  in  the  New 
England  churches,     From  such   sources  as  these 


*  March  15,  1850.  The  responsible  editors  of  the  "  Congregationalist "  at 
this  date  were  Rev.  E.  Beecher,  D.  D.,  Rev.  R.  S.  Storrs,  D.  D.,  and  Rev. 
H.  M.  Dexter.  The  articles  from  which  we  quote  were,  it  is  believed,  writ- 
ten by  the  then  senior  editor,  Dr.  Beecher. 


27 


the  material  for  the  following  pages  has  been 
drawn.  The  reader  must  determine  for  himself 
the  degree  of  credit  to  be  attached  to  the  several 
witnesses  whose  testimony  is  here  recorded. 

What  the  "Theology  of  New  England"  at 
present  is,  may  be  inferred,  with  some  degree  of 
correctness  from  the  influences  which  operated  in 
forming  it. 

Hopkins,  holding  that  all  sin  consists  in  selfish 
exercises,  denying  that  there  is  in  man  any  nature 
or  tendency  to  sin  that  can  be  properly  called  sin- 
ful, exalting  his  doctrine  of  disinterested  benevo- 
lence to  being  in  general  to  the  skies,  rejecting 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  teaching  the  doc- 
trines of  the  atonement  and  justification  in  a  loose 
and  unsatisfactory  manner,  as  well  as  deviating 
from  the  old  faith  in  other  important  particulars, 
exerted  a  wide-spread  and  powerful  influence  on 
the  ministry  and  churches  in  succeeding  genera- 
tions. Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards,  who  rejected  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  in  all  its  branches,  and 
who  is  regarded  as  the  father  of  the  new  scheme 
of  the  atonement,  which  denied  that  Christ  paid 
the  debt  his  people  owe  to  God,  or  died  in  their 
room  and  stead,  or  in  any  proper  sense  satisfied 
divine  justice  in  their  behalf,  or  secured  any  thing 
for  them,  or  did  any  thing  more  than  open  up  the 
way  by  which  God  can  pardon  and  save  sinners 
and  still  maintain  the  integrity  of  his  government, 
and  which  claims  that  his  death  has  the  same  fa- 
vorable aspect  on  all  men,  is  regarded  by  many  as 


28 


second  only  to  his  father.  Long  ago  he  was  ad- 
mitted into  the  catalogue  of  New  England  saints. 
i>  Emmons,  the  great  apostle  of  the  "Exercise 
Scheme,"  who  taught  that  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  original  sin,  that  there  is  no  disposition  to  sin 
antecedent  to  unholy  exercises,  that  all  sin  con- 
sists in  exercises,  that  Christ  merited  nothing  for 
sinners,  that  Christ  by  his  death  only  opened  up 
the  way  by  which  God  might  save  all  men,  or 
none,  as  he  saw  fit,  that  justification  signifies  par- 
don of  sin — no  more,  no  less — that  eternal  life  is 
bestowed  as  the  reward  of  the  believer's  own  sin- 
cere obedience,  and  who  rejected  imputation  in 
every  sense  of  the  term,  claiming  that  the  distinc- 
tion of  Christ's  obedience  into  active  and  passive 
is  wholly  unscriptural,  instructed  nearly  a  hundred 
students  of  theology,  most  of  whom  are  now  New 
England  pastors,  many  of  them  occupying  posi- 
tions of  great  influence.  Emmons  held  views  re- 
specting divine  agency  now  accepted  by  few. 
These,  however,  are  among  his  "  aberrations  in 
the  direction  of  ultra  Calvinism."  Dr.  Dwight, 
for  many  years  President  of  Yale  College,  and 
Professor  of  Theology,  while  he  taught  fully  and 
distinctly  the  old  doctrine  in  relation  to  sin,  de- 
pravity, and  regeneration,  nevertheless  held  views 
on  imputation,  the  atonement,  justification,  and 
other  subjects,  nearly  akin  to  those  of  Emmons, 
and  palpably  diverse  from  the  theology  of  the 
Westminster  standards.  For  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, Dr.  Taylor  and  his  colleagues,  at  New  Ha- 


29 


ven,  have  been  teaching  that  God  could  not  pre- 
vent the  entrance  of  sin  into  our  system  ;  he  could 
not  govern  the  world,  so  as  to  have  less  sin  and 
less  misery  in  it ;  he  does  the  most  and  best  he 
can  to  banish  sin  and  bring  in  holiness ;  men  per- 
severe in  sin  in  spite  of  all  he  can  do  to  reclaim 
them ;  he  converts  and  saves  as  many  souls  as  he 
can,  and  would  willingly  save  all  if  he  could ; 
there  is  no  sinful  nature  antecedent  to  sinful  acts 
or  exercises ;  sin  is  the  free  preference  of  the 
world  and  worldly  good  to  the  will  and  glory  of 
God ;  infants  come  into  the  world  as  free  from  sin 
as  Adam;  death  no  more  proves  sin  in  infants 
than  in  animals ;  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is 
unreasonable  and  absurd  ;  regeneration  is  a  change 
in  the  governing  purpose  of  the  mind ;  it  is  a 
gradual,  progressive  work ;  there  is  no  change  in 
the  nature  or  disposition  of  the  sinner  antecedent 
to  the  exercise  of  right  affections ;  the  sinner  may 
so  resist  the  grace  of  God  as  to  render  it  impossi- 
ble for  God  to  convert  him ;  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit  in  regeneration  is  altogether  persuasive  ex- 
erted through  the  medium  of  truth  or  motives ; 
self-love  or  desire  of  happiness,  is  the  primary 
cause  or  reason  of  all  acts  of  preference  or  choice 
which  fix  supremely  on  any  object.  According 
to  the  Congregationalist,  "  Dr.  Taylor  has,  within 
the  last  twenty  years,  instructed  a  larger  number 
of  students  in  the  department  of  doctrinal  theology 
than  any  other  theological  teacher  in  New  Eng- 
land.   These  students  are  now,  to  a  very  considera- 

3» 


30 


ble  extent,  the  settled  pastors  in  the  churehes  of 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut."  "  Besides,  it  is  a 
well  known  fact,  that  a  very  large  proportion  of 
the  pastors  of  New  England  who  did  not  study 
theology  under  Dr.  Taylor,  hold  essentially  his 
views  on  the  great  and  prominent  doctrines  of  the 
gospel,  and  rank  themselves  as  New  School  men."* 
Dr.  Woods,  for  thirty-eight  years  Professor  of 
Christian  Theology  at  Andover,  orthodox  as  he 
was,  and  Old  School  as  he  is  now  regarded,  was 
understood  to  teach  a  system  which  might  be  con- 
sidered a  compromise  between  old  Calvinism  and 
Hopkinsianism.  For  near  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
those  memorable  sentences,  in  his  "  Letters  to 
Unitarians,"  in  which  he  declared  that  the  ortho- 
dox in  New  England,  cannot  with  good  conscience 
subscribe  to  every  expression  the  Assembly's  Cate- 
chism contains  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal sin,  and  that  they  cannot  admit  that  the  sin- 
fulness of  our  natural  fallen  state  consists  in  any 
measure  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  remained 
unaltered  as  the  record  of  his  deliberate  judgment,  f 
It  was  not  until  advanced  in  life  that  he  publicly 
announced  his  change  of  opinion  in  relation  to 
the  propriety  of  conforming  to  old  school  divines, 
in  the  use  of  theological  terms.  Throughout  his 
entire  connection  with  the  Seminary,  Professor 
Stuart,  and  during  a  part  of  it,  Professor  Park, 
were    associated   with    him.     Their  influence,  it 

*  Aug.  2,  If  50.        |  Letters  to  Unitarians,  p.  44, 1820. 


31 


may  well  be  believed,  did  not,  in  any  degree,  rem- 
edy the  deficiencies  in  his  orthodoxy.  Indeed, 
Dr.  Dana  complains  that  the  instructions  of  Dr. 
Woods,  because  of  opposing  influences,  had  not 
been  permitted  to  operate  with  full  force  on  the 
minds  of  the  students.  There  were  collisions 
even  in  the  pulpit  of  the  Seminary.* 

Such  were  some  of  the  influences  that  operated 
in  forming  the  prevailing  theology  of  New  Eng- 
land.    What  then  is  it  ? 

Dr.  Enoch  Pond,  Professor  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Bangor,  Maine,  one  of  the  most  emi- 
nent of  New  England  divines,  speaking  of  the 
union  between  the  old  Calvinists  and  Hopkinsians, 
in  founding  the  Seminary  at  Andover,  and  in 
other  benevolent  enterprises,  says  : — "  As  they  had 
now  become  a  united  body,  they  needed  some 
name  or  phrase  by  which  their  theology  might  be 
designated.  It  was  not  Calvinism  or  Hopkinsian- 
ism,  in  the  sense  in  which  these  terms  had  been 
used  for  half  a  century,  but  the  coalition,  the  run- 
ning together  of  both  ;  and  it  is  just  here  that  we 
find  the  origin  of  a  phrase  about  which  there  is  no 
little  dispute  at  the  present  day — The  New  Eng- 
land Theology." 

Old  Calvinism,  though  the  prevailing  theology 
in  this  section  for  the  first  one  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  could  not,  he  argues,  with  any  propriety  be 
called  New  England  theology,  as  it  was  not  pecu- 

*  Dana's  Remonstrance,  p.  7 


32 


liar  to  New  England.  Hopkinsianism,  he  farther 
claims,  never  prevailed  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be 
entitled  to  the  name  of  New  England  theology. 
"But  when,"  he  says,  "the  great  body  of  the 
Hopkinsians  and  Calvinists  came  to  unite  their 
forces  to  sustain  the  same  institutions  and  publica- 
tions, the  result  was  a  modified  theology — neither 
old  Calvinism,  on  the  one  hand,  nor  High  Hop- 
kinsianism on  the  other — which  began  to  be 
called  New  England  theology,  and  has  been  so 
designated  ever  since."  "  As  the  two  classes  which 
united  in  1808,  did  not  become  perfectly  one  in 
sentiment,  so  the  theology  which  they  inculcated 
admitted  of  some  diversity  of  statement  and  ex- 
planation. Still  they  were  agreed  in  almost  all 
important  points,  and  wherein  they  differed  they 
were  pledged  to  mutual  toleration.  They  unitedly 
held  what  have  ever  been  considered  the  promi- 
nent points  of  Calvinism :  such  as  the  universal 
and  unconditional  purposes  of  God ;  the  free 
moral  agency  of  man  ;  the  entire  sinfulness  of  the 
natural  heart,  in  consequence  of  the  original  apos- 
tacy  ;  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit : 
justification  by  faith  ;  redemption  by  the  blood  of 
Christ;  the  perseverance  of  saints  unto  eternal 
life;  and  the  endless  punishment  of  those  who  die 
in  their  sins.  If  these  are  Calvinistic  doctrines, 
some  of  them  peculiarly  so,  the  New  England 
theology  is  Calvinistic,  and  our  ministers  may 
with  propriety  be  denominated*  Calvinists,  still, 
they  are  not  Calvinists  in  the  exact  sense  of  the 


33 


New  England  fathers  a  hundred  years  ago."  No- 
ticing a  few  particulars  in  which  the  current  the- 
ology of  New  England  differs  from  the  Calvinism 
of  a  former  age,  he  mentions  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin,  inability,  directions  to  the  uncon- 
verted, regeneration,  and  the  atonement.  He  says, 
moreover,  that  New  England  divines  are  not 
agreed  among  themselves,  but  differ  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  sin,  our  connection  with  Adam,  regenera- 
tion, and  kindred  doctrines.  These  differences,  he 
claims,  are  found  among  the  soundest  and  most 
orthodox  theologians,  and  therefore  ought  to  be 
no  bar  to  union  and  cooperation.  Such  are  the 
views  of  this  theology  held  by  one  of  its  ablest 
and  most  sober-minded  advocates.* 

Professor  Park,  of  Andover,  is,  however,  the 
most  devoted  admirer,  as  well  as  the  ablest  ex- 
pounder of  this  system.  His  statements  have, 
therefore,  peculiar  authority.  In  the  closing  article 
of  his  late  controversy  with  Professor  Hodge,  of 
Princeton,  he  thus  writes  : — "  We  beg  leave,  there- 
fore, first  of  all,  to  explain  the  term  New  England 
theology.  It  signifies  the  formal  creed  which  a 
majority  of  the  most  eminent  theologians  in  New 
England  have  explicitly  or  implicitly  sanctioned, 
during  and  since  the  time  of  Edwards.  It  in- 
cludes not  the  peculiarities  in  which  Edwards 
differed,  as  he  is  known  to  have  differed  from  the 
larger  part  of  his  most  eminent  followers,  nor  the 

*  Sketch  of  the  Theological  Hist,  of  New  England.  Boston  Cong.,  Nos.  7  and  8. 


34 

peculiarities  in  which  any  one  of  his  followers 
differed,  as  some  of  them  did,  from  the  larger  part 
of  the  others  ;  but  it  comprehends  the  principles, 
with  their  logical  sequences,  which  the  greater 
number  of  our  most  celebrated  divines  have  ap- 
proved expressly,  or  by  implication.  It  was  first 
called  New-light  Divinity,  then  New  Divinity, 
afterward  Edwardean,  more  recently  Hopkinto- 
nian  or  Hopkinsian.  From  the  fact  that  Edwards, 
Hopkins,  West,  and  Catlin,  resided  in  Berkshire 
county,  it  was  once  called  Berkshire  divinity. 
When  it  was  embraced  by  Andrew  Fuller,  Dr. 
Kyland,  Robert  Hall,  SutclifFe,  Carey,  Jay,  and 
Erskine,  it  was  called  American  theology  by  the 
English,  in  order  to  discriminate  it  from  the  Euro- 
pean systems.*  It  has  been  denominated  New 
England  theology,  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  systems  that  have  prevailed  in  other  parts  of 
the  land.  In  1756,  two  years  before  the  death  of 
Edwards,  there  were,  according  to  Dr.  Hopkins, 
not  more  than  four  or  five  clergymen  who  espous- 
ed this  new  theology.  In  1773,  it  was  advocated 
by  about  forty-five  ministers;  and  Dr.  Hopkins 
says  that  in  1796  it  was  favored  by  somewhat 
more  than  a  hundred.     In  1787,  Dr.  Stiles  men- 


*In  relation  to  the  above  assertion,  an  eminent  old  school  Professor  of  The- 
ology uses  the  following  language  :  "  Professor  Park's  assertion,  that  Hopkin- 
gianism  was  embraced  by  Fuller,  Ryland,  Hall,  Erskine,  etc.,  is  so  unfound- 
ed, and  can  be  proved  to  be  so  by  the  writings  of  the  persons  named,  that  I  am 
surprised  at  its  rashness.  The  distinction  between  moral  and  natural  ability — 
which,  however,  is  far  older  than  Edwards— and  the  unlimited  extent,  or 
rather  the  boundless  efficacy  of  the  Atonement,  are  the  only  ideas  which  they 
derive  from  New  England." 


35 


tions  as  among  its  champions  the  two  Edwardses, 
Bellamy,  Hopkins,  Trumbull,  Smalley,  Judson, 
Spring,  Robinson,  Strong,  Dwight,  Emmons.  In 
1799  Hopkins  appended  the  names  of  West,  Levi 
Hart,  Backus,  Presidents  Balch  and  Fitch.  We 
may  now  add  such  honored  men  as  Dr.  Catlin, 
President  Appleton,  Dr.  Austin.  They  gave  form 
and  pressure  to  our  theological  system.  They 
were  imperfect  men.  They  did  not  harmonize  on 
every  theme ;  but  a  decided  majority  of  them 
stood  firm  for  the  threejadical  principles,  that  sin 
consists  in  choice,  that  our  natural  power  equals, 
and  that  it  limits  our  duty." 

Characterizing  this  system  particularly,  be  says  : 
"  It  is  marked  by  certain  new  features."  He  does 
not  specify  them,  but  says  in  general :  "  We  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  the  Edwardean  school  dis- 
covered principles  that,  were  never  thought  of  be- 
fore. They  claim  to  have  brought  out  into  bold 
relief  the  obscurer  faith  of  good  men  in  all  ages. 
They  gave  a  new  distinctness,  a  new  prominence 
to  doctrines  which  had  been  more  vaguely  be- 
lieved by  the  churcTi.  They  produced  new  argu- 
ments for  a  faith  which  had  been  speculatively 
opposed  by  men  who  had  practically  sanctioned 
it."  As  an  example,  he  mentions  the  doctrine 
that  "an  entirely  depraved  man  has  a  natural 
power  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  him,"  claiming 
"that  it  has  been  so  clearly  unfolded  by  New- 
England  divines  that  it  properly  belongs  to  their 
distinctive   system."     He    further   maintains  that 


36 

"  New  England  theology  is  Calvinism  in  an  im- 
proved form."  "  It  does  not  profess  to  be  original 
in  its  cardinal  truths.  It  has  ever  claimed  that 
they  are  the  common  faith  of  the  church ;  that 
they  are  recognised  in  many  evangelical  creeds  ; 
that  Calvinism  contains  the  substance  of  New- 
England  theology,  not  always  well-proportioned, 
not  seldom  intermingled  with  the  remnants  of  an 
erring  scholasticism,  and  sometimes  enveloped  in 
inconsistencies,  and  expressed  in  a  nervous  style. 
The  substance  of  our  theology  is  Calvinistic : 
here  it  is  old.  Much  of  its  self-consistency  is  Ed- 
wardean  and  Hopkinsian  ;  here  it  is  new.  It  is 
not  mere  Calvinism,  but  it  is  consistent  Calvin- 
ism. It  is  a  revised  and  corrected  edition  of  the 
Genevan  creed."  (As  specimens  of  the  crooked 
parts  of  Calvinism  that  New  England  divines 
have  straightened  out,  he  mentions  the  agency  of 
God  in  producing  sin,  and  the  nature  of  necessity. ) 
£"  Strong,  practical  common  sense,"  he  says,  "is 
another  characteristic  of  the  New  England  divin- 
ity." This  feature  he  illustrates  by  a  reference  to 
its  theory  concerning  the  nature  of  moral  evil,  af- 
firming that  all  sin  consists  in  sinful  acts,  or  exer- 
cises, and  denying  that  there  is  any  antecedent 
sinful  nature.  In  his  remarks  on  this  topic  it  is  a 
noticeable  fact,  that  Prof.  Park  has  the  hardihood 
to  claim  Pres.  Edwards  and  Dr.  Dwight  as  hold- 
ing this  theory^  Does  the  learned  Professor  sup- 
pose that  his  readers  are  not  capable  of  compre- 
hending for  themselves  the  plainest  and  most  di- 


37 


rect  statements  of  these  divines?  In  the  next 
place,  he  characterizes  "  New  Englaud  theology  as 
a  comprehensive  system  of  biblical  science."  "  It 
unites  a  high,  but  not  an  ultra  Calvinism,  on  the 
decrees  and  agency  of  God,  with  a  philosophical, 
but  not  an  Arminian  theory,  on  the  freedom  and 
worth  of  the  human  soul."  "  When  its  opposers 
think  of  its  efforts  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to 
man,  they  hastily  accuse  it  of  Arminianism  ;  and 
when  they  turn  their  minds  to  its  descriptions  of 
the  supreme,  universal  Governor,  they  hastily  ac- 
cuse it  of  hyper- Calvinism."  In  the  last  place,  he 
claims  that  "  it  is  the  only  system  of  speculative 
orthodoxy  that  can  endure  examination,  and  there- 
fore destined  to  prevail."  "  It  is  a  system  which 
will  bear  to  be  looked  at,  and  is  not  a  theology  of 
mere  'dissolving  views.'  The  science  of  the  world 
is  in  favor  of  it.  The  moral  instincts  of  the  race 
are  in  favor  of  it.  The  common  sense  of  common 
men  is  in  favor  of  it.  They  can  be  kept  back 
from  it  only  by  the  incessant  roll  of  a  polemic 
drum,  which  alarms  them  by  its  discordant  sounds." 
This  synopsis  of  Prof.  Park's  article  will  show  the 
light  in  which  this  system  is  regarded  by  its  great 
champion.  A  shade  of  difference  will  be  observed 
between  him  and  Prof.  Pond.* 

Still  another  eminent  divine  has  undertaken  to 
interpret  the  phrase  "  New  England  theology." 
We  refer  to  Dr.  Woods.     A  short  time  before  his 

*  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1S52. 
4 


38 


death  he  published  a  pamphlet,  in  which  he  main- 
tained that  the  theology  of  New  England  is  sim- 
ply that  of  the  Shorter  Catechism — nothing  more 
— nothing  less — nothing  different.  All  who  swerve 
from  it,  he  maintains,  swerve  from  the  true  New 
England  theology.  He  is,  however,  compelled  to 
admit  that  among  those  who  would  be  numbered 
with  orthodox  ministers,  there  are  individuals  who 
entertain  opinions  obviously  at  variance  with 
what  he  calls  the  settled  theology  of  the  Puritans. 
These  erroneous  doctrines  are,  that  the  purpose  of 
God  to  save  sinners  rests  wholly  on  his  foreknowl- 
edge of  their  repentance,  faith,  and  obedience — 
that  Adam's  posterity  begin  their  existence,  as  he 
did,  free  from  moral  corruption  or  any  sinful  pro- 
pensity— that  God  was  not  able  to  exclude  sin 
from  a  world  of  free  moral  agents,  however  much 
he  may  have  desired  it — that  when  God  has  fa- 
vored sinners  with  the  privileges  of  the  gospel  and 
the  strivings  of  the  Spirit,  he  has  done  all  he  can 
for  their  conversion — that  the  new  birth  consists 
in  a  right  exercise  of  free  agency — that  Christ  did 
not  die  in  place  of  sinners,  but  merely  made  an 
affecting  demonstration  of  God's  readiness  to  save 
sinners,  etc.  These  opinions  he  looked  upon  as 
exceptions  to  the  common  belief.  He  was  per- 
suaded that  the  great  body  of  Congregational 
ministers  and  churches  are  sound  in  the  faith.* 
Here,  however,  the  editors  of  the  Congregation- 

*  Theology  of  the  Puritans,  pp.  39-42. 


39 


alist  joined  issue  with  the  doctor,  and  maintained 
that  the  prevalent  theology  of  New  England  is 
not  in  all  respects  that  of  the  Catechism,  but 
something  very  different.*  Prof.  Pond,  while  he 
admits  that  Old  School  Calvinism  was  the  pre- 
vailing theology  in  New  England  for  the  first  one 
hundred  and'  thirty  years,  insists  that  since  that 
time  it  has  come  to  be  something  different.f  The 
editors  of  the  Panoplist — a  periodical  started  in 
Boston,  January,  1850,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
counteracting  the  erroneous  influences  abroad,  but 
which,  after  a  sickly  existence  of  not  quite  three 
years,  was  discontinued  for  want  of  support,  say: 
"  We  think  the  charity  of  Dr.  Woods  has  led 
him  to  a  more  hopeful  view  of  the  state  of  the 
orthodox  faith  than  the  facts  will  warrant.  We 
have  no  doubt  the  defection,  both  in  Puritan 
habits  and  doctrine,  is  far  more  extensive  than  is 
generally  believed,  or  even  suspected.''^  High 
authorities  among  both  new  and  old  school  men, 
it  will  thus  be  seen,  differ  from  Dr.  Woods,  in 
their  estimate  of  New  England  theology.  Men, 
however,  whose  judgment  is  worthy  of  very  high 
respect  substantially  agree  with  him,  as  will  ap- 
pear in  the  sequel. 

The  editors  of  the  Panoplist,  in  their  introduc- 
tory address,  give  a  more  formal  expression  of 
their  estimate  of  the   new  theology.     They  repre- 


*  Congregationalist  for  1850  and  1851. 

t  Sketches  of  the  Theological  History  of  New  England,  Nos.  7  and  8. 

t  Panoplist,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  104. 


40 


sent  it  as  having  carried  away  "  a  great  portion  of 
the  Congregational  churches."  Styling  it  a  "  spe- 
cies of  rationalism,"  they  use  the  following  lan- 
guage : — "  We  have  said  it  is  dangerous  in  the 
last  degree.  But  we  have  not  been  beating  the 
air,  telling  a  story  of  a  chimera,  or  some  frightful 
object  which  every  body  has  heard  of  but  nobody 
seen.  We  speak  of  it  as  something  which  exists, 
which  exists  among  us,  which  is  fast  spreading 
itself  among  our  churches.  We  speak  what  we 
know,  and  testify  of  something  which  we  have 
seen.  We  know  that  it  has  long  shown  its  in- 
fluence in  our  colleges,  that  it  characterises  the 
discussions  in  our  theological  seminaries  and  the 
discourses  of  the  pulpit :  we  know  that  it  is  rapid- 
ly extending  itself,  and  threatens  a  very  general 
defection  from  the  faith  of  our  fathers."  Let  it  be 
observed  that  reference  is  here  made  to  the  inroad 
of  principles  different  from,  and  what  we  would 
call  still  more  erroneous  than  the  New  England 
orthodoxy  of  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.* 

Prof.  Hodge  of  Princeton,  in  the  concluding  ar- 
ticle of  his  controversy  with  Prof.  Park,  has  given 
us  a  glimpse  of  what  he  regards  as  New  England 
theology.  His  views  are  exhibited  in  the  follow- 
ing extract.  It  will  be  seen  that  he  agrees  very 
nearly  with  Dr.  Woods  : — "  There  is  another  fea- 
ture in  Prof.  Park's  mode  of  conducting  this  dis- 
cussion, which  is  very  little  to  our  taste.     He  con- 

*  Panoplist,  Vol.  I,  p.  9. 


41 


stantly  endeavors  to  represent  us  as  assailing -New 
England  theology.     This  is  a  ruse  de  guerre  every 
way  unworthy  of  a  candid  disputant.     We  stated, 
as  the  three  radical  principles  of  the  Anti-Agus- 
tinian  system — 'First,  all  sin  consists  in  sinning; 
that  there  can  be  no  moral  character  but  in  moral 
acts  ;  secondly,  that  the  power  to  the  contrary  i 
essential  to  free  agency ;  that  a  free  agent  ma 
always  act  contrary  to  any  influence,  not  destruc- 
tive of  his  freedom,  that  may  be  brought  to  bear 
upon  him ;  thirdly,  that  ability  limits  responsibil- 
ity ;  that  men  are  responsible  only  so  far  as  they 
have  adequate  power  to  do   what  is  required  of 
them,  or  that  they  are  responsible  for  nothing  not 
under  the  control  of  the  will.'     If  there   is  one 
characteristic    of    New   England   theology   more 
prominent  than  any  other,  it  is  opposition  to  these 
principles.     The   world-wide   fame   of    President 
Edwards,   as  a  theologian,   rests   mainly  on   his 
thorough  refutation  of  them.     In  this  opposition, 
Bellamy,  Dwight,   and   the   other   great   men    of 
New  England,  were  no  less  strenuous  than   Ed- 
wards.    The  aberration  of  the  advocates  of  the  1 
1  Exercise  Scheme,'  though  it  led  them  to  a  denial 
of  at  least  the  first  of  the  above  principles,  was  in 
the  direction  of  ultra  Calvinism.     It  was  not  until 
the  rise  of  what  is  popularly  called   New  Haven- 
ism,  that  those  principles  were  rejected  by  any 
other  class  of  New  England  divines  reputed  or- 
thodox.    It  is  Prof.  Park  and  not  we  who  is  the 
assailant  of  New  England  theology,  a  fact  which 


42 


he  will  not  be  able  to  conceal.  We  recently 
heard  of  a  certain  Unitarian  gentleman  who  seem- 
ed honestly  to  believe  that  Trinitarianism  is  dying 
out  in  this  country.  It  is  possible  that  a  similar 
hallucination  may  lead  Prof.  Park  to  regard  the 
little  coterie  to  which  he  belongs  as  all  New  Eng- 
land."* Such  is  the  estimate  of  the  great  living 
champion  of  the  old  school  theology. 

After  the  controversy  between  Prof.  Park  of 
Andover,  and  Prof.  Hodge  of  Princeton,  closed,  in 
1852,  Dr.  Lord,  President  of  Dartmouth  College, 
published  a  letter  to  Dr.  Dana  of  Newbury  port. 
In  it  he  thus  speaks  of  the  theology  of  New  Eng- 
land : — "  Prof.  Hodge,  Dr.  Woods,  and  others,  of 
the  Edwardean  school  in  New  England,  have 
good  hopes.  They  imagine  that  Calvinism  is 
still  ascendant  among  the  churches  of  the  fathers. 
But  I  fear  they  err.  I  fear  that  Prof.  Park  judges 
truly  that  the  current  of  theological  opinion  is 
running  in  the  'new'  channels.  I  fear  he  would 
be  found,  if  occasion  should  serve,  in  the  centre 
of  a  larger  '  coterie '  than  these  good  men  imagine. 
For  it  is  true  that  the  Assembly's  Catechism  has 
mostly  ceased  from  the  families ,  schools,  and  churches 
of  New  England.  It  is  true  that  wanton  hands 
have  marred  that  venerable  digest  itself  and  few 
care  to  wipe  the  infamy  away.  It  is  true  that  we 
are  altering  our  confessions  and  covenants,  our 
psalms  and  hymns,  and  our  style  of  worship  in  gen- 

jgf  *  Princeton  Review,  Vol.  XXIII,  p.  693-4. 


43 


eral,  to  suit  a  more  highly  illuminated  state  of  the 
public  mind.  Unequivocal  signs  exist  that  a  great 
change  is  coming  over  New  England.  And  there 
is  plenary  evidence  that  this  change  is  referable  to 
a  period  when  our  theology  was  diverted  into  a 
speculative  channel,  when  its  learned  teachers  be- 
gan to  light  their  torch  at  the  altar  of  the  imagi- 
native reason,  and,  in  their  circuits  after  divine 
knowledge,  went  up  to  Alexandria  and  Athens, 
rather  than  to  Jerusalem."* 

After  showing,  at  considerable  length,  that  the 
theology  of  New  England  was  the  theology  set 
forth  in  the  Catechism,  he  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage : — "  The  Professor,  if  he  pleases,  in  his 
commendable,  though  misdirected  zeal  of  knowl- 
edge, may  cull  the  flowers  of  the  patristic  meta- 
physics, and  distil  them  in  his  well  furnished 
laboratory  at  Andover.  He  may  digest  these  es- 
sences, if  he  will,  in  his  concentrated  eclectic  sol- 
vent. He  may  give  out  the  compound,  if  he  will, 
as  a  panacea  for  the  moral  and  theological  dis- 
eases of  the  age,  and  multiply  certificates  of  its 
healing  power  over  the  catholicons  that  have  gone 
before  it ;  but  let  it  not  be  labelled  '  New  England 
theology.'  That  endures  no  counterfeit.  It  has  a 
regular  Puritan  image  and  superscription,  unique, 
intelligible  and  unmistakeable,  to  the  end  of  time. 
A  spurious  article  may  supplant  it,  and  have  its 
run  till  overtaken  by  some   more  sublimated  spe- 

*  Letter,  p.  27. 


44 


cific.  But  it  cannot  be  long  mistaken  for  the  gen- 
uine. We  have  seen  many  attempts  to  give  cur- 
rency to  the  false  by  the  alleged  authority  of  ven- 
erated names.  But  they  have  always  failed. 
Whoever  calls  Taylorism  New  England  theology 
now  ;  or  imagines  that  it  could  have  sprung  from 
the  heart  of  Edwards,  or  even  from  his  head,  ex- 
cept in  sleep  ?  The  modern  digests  of  the  ancient 
incoherent  and  equivocal  speculations,  may,  in- 
deed, become  New  England  theology,  if  it  is  right 
to  call  them  by  that  sacred  name.  I  fear  they 
will ;  for  the  majority  would  rather  be  killed  by 
nostrums,  than  cured  by  the  regular  physicians. 
Such  has  ever  been  the  history  of  sophistry  and 
unbelief,  and  we  have  no  right  to  expect  exemp- 
tion from  a  universal  law.  But  these  specifics 
can  never  be  New  England  theology — as  it  was. 
They  can  never  stand  the  reaction  of  the  Assem- 
bly's Catechism,  or  the  Statutes  at  Andover. 
God  be  thanked !  we  have  made  sure  of  some- 
thing in  New  England.  The  Puritans  did  not 
bleed  and  die  for  a  chimera."* 

Thus  writes  an  eminent  divine  who  occupies  a 
place  on  one  of  New  England's  watch  towers. 
His  testimony  is  worthy  of  special  attention. 

The  next  witness,  whose  testimony  we  would 
add  to  the  foregoing,  is  from  a  different  class — 
embracing  but  very  few  individuals,  yet  well 
qualified  to  testify  in  such  a  case — New  England 

*  Letter,  p.  33-4. 


45 


Presbyterians.  On  fast  day,  1848,  Rev.  W.  W. 
Eells,  pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church 
in  Newburyport,  in  connection  with  the  General 
Assembly,  himself  a  New  England  man,  perfectly 
familiar  with  the  prevalent  theology,  preached  two 
sermons,  specially  intended  to  point  out  the  defec- 
tions of  the  descendants  of  the  Puritans  from  the 
faith  and  practice  of  their  fathers.  These  sermons 
were  afterwards  published.  The  author  talks 
plainly — bluntly,  indeed.  Take  the  following  ex- 
tracts, as  exhibiting  his  estimate  of  New  England 
theology : — "  Notwithsanding  the  cry  of  Puritan 
theology  from  pulpits,  and  tracts,  and  pamphlets, 
and  newspapers,  and  more  aspiring  periodicals,  it 
is  evident  from  our  practice,  that  there  is  very  little 
of  true  Puritan  theology  amongst  us."  "  It  is  an 
undeniable  fact)  that  very  little  doctrinal  preaching 
of  any  kind  is  found  in  the  pulpits  of  the  present 
day,  in  this  land  of  the  Puritans.  A  sickly  senti- 
mentalism — a  morality  scarcely  more  refined  than 
that  of  Plato — the  discussion  of  abstract  topics  of 
speculation — the  advocacy  of  some  scheme  of  real 
benevolence,  or  of  the  multitude,  whose  name  is 
legion,  of  counterfeit  schemes  of  good — or,  at  most, 
the  indefinite  and  indirect  preaching  about  the 
gospel,  the  delicate  and  distant  allusion  to  some 
of  the  plainer  first  principles  of  truth — this  is  the 
provision  now  too  generally  set  before  the  sons  of 
those  who  desired  to  be  fed,  and  were  fed,  and 
sustained,  and  strengthened  on  the  strong  meat  of 
the  gospel  of  grace.     This  is  a  truth — an  awful 


46 


truth.  And  many  an  humble  Christian  has  mourn- 
ed over  it  when  he  has  gone  to  the  sanctuary  and 
found  no  Savior  there ;  and  out  of  a  heart  bur- 
dened with  grief,  has  groaned  with  Mary — '  They 
have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where 
they  have  laid  him.'  "  "  The  popular  theology  of 
the  day — that  which  is  held  to  an  alarming  ex- 
tent, and  is  increasing,  almost  unrebuked,  and 
which  bids  fair  soon  to  be  universal — is  a  direct 
contradiction,  in  every  important  point,  to  the  the- 
ology and  doctrine  of  our  fathers."  "  The  adher- 
ents of  this  new  system  of  antiquated  error  and 
falsehood,  commence  their  work  by  sinking  away 
this  foundation  stone,"  (the  doctrine  of  original 
sin.)  "Sin,"  they  say,  "is  voluntary  action  in 
view  of  known  law.  Sin  is  altogether  action. 
The  very  idea  of  a  sinful  disposition,  a  depraved 
nature,  a  sinful  propensity,  is  scouted  and  ridicul- 
ed as  an  absurdity."  "  The  representative  charac- 
ter of  Adam,  as  well  as  any  imputation  of  his  sin, 
or  any  thing  like  inherent  sinfulness  or  hereditary 
depravity,  is  utterly  denied  and  derided."  "  I  but 
echo  the  cry  of  these  new  system-mongers  when  I 
say  that  this  doctrine  of  atonement,  and  this  doc- 
trine of  justification,"  (that  taught  in  the  Confes- 
sion and  Catechisms,)  "  are  almost  wholly  un- 
known among  the  descendants  of  the  Puritans  in 
this  land  of  their  prayers.  And  not  only  so,  but 
men  in  high  places  in  the  church  seem  to  find  a 
malignant  pleasure,  first  in  caricaturing  these  doc- 
trines, and  then  in   holding  them  up  to  derision 


47 


and  contempt."  After  describing  the  doctrine  of 
the  Confession  as  to  the  application  of  redemp- 
tion, he  goes  on  to  say  : — "  But  all  this  glorious 
truth  is  a  fable,  and  a  dream,  to  these  wise  men — 
wise  in  old  folly."  "Regeneration  is  a  change 
from  sinful  action  to  holy  action.  And  this  man, 
who  is  thus  to  change,  is  not  dead  in  sins.  He  is 
as  fully  able  to  keep  all  the  law  of  God  as  Adam 
was."  "  All  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  reduced  to 
mere  persuasion,  to  the  application  of  motives  to 
the  will  of  man.  He  may  bring  the  truth  home 
with  power  upon  the  understanding,  but  he  can- 
not change  the  heart."  Mr.  Eells  closes  up  this 
discussion  with  the  following  energetic  language  : 
"  Here  I  will  pause,  not  that  the  catalogue  of 
falsehood  and  of  folly  is  exhausted,  but  that 
enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  all  the  founda- 
tions of  Puritan  theology  are  overthrown  by  those 
who  vainly  boast  that  the  Puritans  are  their 
fathers.  These  are  the  doctrines  that  are  taught 
by  professors  of  theology,  that  are  preached  from 
the  pulpit  in  this  land  of  the  pilgrims.  And  the 
evil  is  wide-spread,  and  is  fast  extending  itself. 
This  is  an  undeniable  truth."  Thus  a  New 
England  Presbyterian  characterizes  the  prevalent 
theology. 

The  author  of  the  "  Andover  Fuss  " — a  pam- 
phlet published  in  1853,  in  review  of  Dr.  Dana's 
remonstrance,  we  would  bring  forward  as  another 
witness.  The  pamphlet,  though  anonymous,  yet 
bears  marks  of  being  "  by  authority."     Speaking 


48 


of  the  efforts  of  the  few  genuine  Old  School  men 
in  this  region,  the  writer  says  : — "  They  have  com- 
passed sea  and  land  to  proselyte  New  England  to 
a  faith  which  it  abhors,  and  which  it  shook  off  as 
offensive  to  the  first  principles  of  justice  and  the 
most  rooted  convictions  of  common  sense.  Those 
cast-off  errors,  for  which  the  orthodox  would  not  be 
held  responsible,  it  requires  no  gift  of  prophecy  to 
foretell,  will  never  regain  their  ascendancy  over  New 
England,  or  ever  come  out,  barefaced,  in  many,  if  in 
any  of  her  churches ;  the  Westminster  doctrine  of 
original  sin  will  never  come  back  to  the  region  from 
which  it  has  been  so  decisively  and  considerately 
cast  out.  We  only  wonder  that  men  of  so  much 
wisdom  should  be  men  of  so  much  folly.  If  the 
triple  force  of  cunning,  secrecy,  and  combination, 
could  insure  success,  theirs  would  not  be  doubtful. 
What  arts  have  been  spared  to  deluge  the  ortho- 
dox churches  of  New  England  with  a  scholastic 
catechism,  which  it  is  hard  to  understand,  and  still 
harder  to  believe  ?  What  manoeuvres  have  been 
wanting  to  lay  hold  of  every  religious  press,  and 
turn  its  weeklies  and  quarterlies  up  the  channel  of 
time  ?  What  subtle  scheming  and  patient  assi- 
duity have  not  attested  the  fond  desire  and  fixed 
intent  to  overturn  the  platform  of  Congregational- 
ism, and  foist  into  its  place  a  system  of  disguised, 
but  rank  Presbyterianism  ?  What  inventions 
have  not  been  plied  to  coerce  the  elder  theological 
seminaries  in  New  England  to  caress  a  doctrine, 
which,  in  1820,  was  branded  by  Dr.  Woods  as  a 


49 


fugitive  and  a  vagabond,  or  else  to  direct  theolog- 
ical students  to  a  seminary  that  was  an  Ishmaelite 
from  its  conception.  What  secret  correspondence 
has  not  been  carried  on  to  extend  over  New  Eng- 
land an  ultraism  of  orthodoxy,  which  that  region 
had  lost  sight  of?  What  espionage  has  not  leered 
at  a  freedom  of  thought  that  ranged  over  a  field 
broader  than  the  dogmas  of  Westminster,  or  in- 
dulged in  a  moral  sentiment  at  variance  ivith  its 
obsolete  and  preposterous  doctrine  of  original  sin  ? 
What  vigilance  has  not  been  on  the  look  out  for 
vacant  pulpits,  agencies,  and  offices  of  honor  and 
influence  in  seminaries  of  learning,  to  manage 
into  them  candidates  of  stockstill  fixedness  in  an 
effete  creed,  and  to  fly-blow  such  as  ventured  a 
step  out  of  the  magic  circle  of  the  Westminster 
faith  ?" 

Desiring  to  throw  light  from  every  quarter  on 
this  subject  we  present  two  more  extracts.  An 
article  in  the  Boston  Congregationalist  of  Aug.  2d, 
1850,  understood  to  be  from  the  pen  of  Br.  Ed- 
ward Beecher,  who  twenty  years  ago  was  regarded 
as  a  "  strenuous  advocate  of  Taylorism,"  contains 
the  following  language : — "  We  should  like  to 
know,  however,  what  is  to  be  allowed  hereafter  to 
pass  for  orthodoxy  in  Massachusetts  and  Connec- 
ticut. Within  the  last  twenty  years  Dr.  Taylor 
has,  we  suppose,  instructed  a  larger  number  of 
students  in  the  department  of  doctrinal  theology 
than  any  other  theological  teacher  in  New  Eng- 
land.    These  students  are  now,  to  a  considerable 


50 


extent,  the  settled  pastors  in  the  churches  of  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Connecticut.  .  .  .  But  besides,  it 
is  a  well-known  fact,  that  a  very  large  proportion 
of  the  pastors  of  New  England  who  did  not  study- 
theology  under  Dr.  Taylor,  hold  essentially  his 
views  on  the  great  and  prominent  doctrines  of  the 
gospel,  and  rank  themselves  as  New  School  men. 
These  views  were  entertained  by  multitudes  long 
before  Dr.  Taylor's  day.  We  have  been  interested 
of  late  in  noticing  how  this  matter  works.  Our 
delegate  to  the  Old  School  General  Assembly  is 
very  happy  to  inform  that  venerable  body  that  the 
orthodoxy  of  Massachusetts  was  never  in  a  more 
healthy,  vigorous,  and  prosperous  state.  True,  un- 
questionably. But  if  nothing  is  to  be  reckoned  as 
orthodoxy  in  Massachusetts  but  Old  School  Calvin- 
ism, the  delegate  ought  not  to  have  made  any 
such  report.  He  ought  frankly  to  have  told  that 
body  that  Massachusetts'  orthodoxy  was  sadly  on 
the  decline.  It  seems  to  us,  our  Old  School 
friends,  when  they  make  a  summing  up  of  the  con- 
dition of  orthodoxy,  are  very  glad  to  reckon  in  all 
the  New  School  men,  because  they  would  make 
rather  a  meagre  show  without  us ;  but  in  other 
circumstances  they  magisterially  talk  about  our 
having  embraced  '  some  form  of  rationalism.'  " 

The  last  general  estimate  of  the  Theology  of 
New  England,  which  we  would  present,  is  that 
made  by  Rev.  William  T.  Dwight,  D.  D.,  of  Port- 
land, Maine,  in  a  discourse  delivered  in  Boston 
before  the  "  Congregational  Board  of  Publication," 


51 


May  30,  1855.  His  theme  was  "  Characteristics 
of  New  England  Theology."  He  described  it  as 
independent,  steadily  progressive,  truly  scriptural, 
and  as  having  formed  the  New  England  character. 
Speaking  of  it  as  scriptural  he  uses  the  following 
language : 

"  When  we  would  thus  describe  the  theology  of 
New  England,  we  intend  that  it  is  more  scriptural 
than  the  Apostle's  Creed,  or  than  the  Nicene 
Creed ;  than  the  theology  of  Luther  and  Melanc- 
thon,  of  Knapp  and  Tholuck  and  Hengstenberg; 
than  the  theology  of  Leighton,  of  Butler,  and  Ma- 
gee,  or  than  the  piebald  theology  of  Coleridge ; 
than  that  of  Symington  and  Chalmers  ;  or  than 
that  of  Calvin  and  Turretin.  Or,  if  such  compari- 
sons are  thought  to  savor  of  presumption,  it  is  in- 
tended that  this  theology  would  peculiarly  har- 
monize with  such  a  system  of  divine  truth  as  the 
great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  would  have  prepared 
soon  after  completing  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
had  he  been  then  led  to  undertake  such  a  work, 
and  without  the  immediate  guidance  of  inspira- 
tion in  its  execution." 

In  presenting  these  testimonies,  we  have  had  no 
pre-conceived  theory  of  our  own  to  make  good. 
Our  aim  has  been  simply  to  throw  light  on  the 
subject  from  all  quarters,  to  aid  the  reader  in  form- 
ing a  correct  estimate  of  the  real  facts. 

We  now  proceed  to  point  out  the  views  of  the 
great  facts  in  the  plan  of  salvation  prevalent  in 
the  Puritan  churches  of  New  England.     At  the 


52 


Synod,  met  in  Boston,  A.  D.  1680,  composed  of 
ministers  and  messengers  from  all  the  New  Eng- 
land churches,  according  to  Cotton  Mather,  "  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  consented  to  by  the  Congre- 
gational churches  of  England  in  a  synod  met  at 
the  Savoy — which,  excepting  a  few  variations, 
was  the  same  with  what  was  agreed  by  the  Rev- 
erend Assembly  at  Westminster,  and  afterwards 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  Scotland — was  twice 
publicly  read,  examined,  and  approved,  and  some 
small  variations  made  from  that  of  the  Savoy,  in 
compliance  with  that  of  the  Westminster,  and 
so,  after  such  collations,  but  no  contentions,  voted 
and  printed  as  the  faith  of  New  England."*  We 
have  examined  this  Confession  with  care.  As  far 
as  its  exhibition  of  the  plan  of  redemption  is  con- 
cerned, it  corresponds  in  every  particular  with 
that  of  the  Westminster  divines.  In  the  most  im- 
portant chapters,  there  is  not  even  a  verbal  differ- 
ence. Such  was  the  standard  of  ancient  ortho- 
doxy in  New  England.  We  shall  aim,  in  the  se- 
quel, to  point  out  whatever  important  departures 
from  it  have  taken  place.  We  shall  be  careful  to 
set  down  as  true  only  well  established  facts. 

Orthodox  Congregationalists  are  usually  spoken 
of  as  divided  into  Old  and  New  School.  The  po- 
sition of  these  parties  is  clearly  stated  in  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  the  "  Boston  Congregation- 
alist,"  of  September  13,  1850  : — "  Those  who  con- 

*  Magnolia,  Vol.  II :  p.  156. 


53 


sistently  hold  and  unfold  the  views  of  Edwards, 
in  his  treatise  '  on  Virtue,'  are  New  School  divines, 
though  their  more  proper  name  is  New  England 
divines.  Those  who  repudiate  these  as  false  and 
dangerous,  are  Old  School."  In  answer  to  the 
question,  Who  are  to  be  ranked  among  the  Old 
School  ?  the  writer  says  : — "  The  Princeton  di- 
vines, the  editors  of  the  modern  Panoplist,  and  all 
who  with  them  wish  to  revolutionize  the  theology 
of  New  England."  Again,  in  answer  to  the  in- 
quiry, Would  he  include  the  Calvinists  of  New 
England,  as  distinguished  from  the  Hopkinsians, 
among  the  Old  School  ?  he  says  : — "  By  no  means. 
They  are  separated  by  an  impassable  gulf  from 
Old  School  Princeton  divines.  For  what  the 
Princetonians  abhor  and  renounce  as  the  source 
and  fountain  of  all  evil,  the  old  Calvinists  of  New 
England  have  eminently  honored  as  the  truth  of 
God."  It  is  well  to  remember,  that  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  editors  of  the  Congregationalist, 
those  divines  in  New  England  known  as  "  Old 
Calvinists,"  are  separated  in  sentiment  by  an  im- 
passable gulf  from  the  Princeton  divines.  Even 
among  the  New  School  or  New  England  divines, 
as  the  Congregationalist  prefers  to  style  them, 
there  is  a  well-defined  line  of  division.  Of  these, 
one  class  is  sometimes  called  Old  School,  and  the 
other  New.  The  former  is,  in  their  judgment,  but 
a  "  meagre  party."  In  the  sequel  the  theology  of 
these  parties  will  be  carefully  distinguished. 

5* 


54 


I.    Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

Among  those  who  claim  to  be  included  within 
the  pale  of  orthodoxy,  are  some — how  many  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing — who  reject,  or  .at 
least  practically  deny,  the  commonly  received  doc- 
trine of  inspiration.  Dr.  Woods,  who  is  very  so- 
licitous to  vindicate  the  orthodoxy  of  the  ortho- 
dox, is  compelled  to  acknowledge  "  that  lax  opin- 
ions are  occasionally  put  forth  as  to  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures."  He  goes  on  to  say : — 
"  Some  ministers,  who  wish  to  be  called  orthodox, 
show  more  confidence  in  their  own  reason  than  in 
the  holy  Scriptures.  They  set  aside,  or  new-model 
those  teachings  of  revelation  which  transcend  their 
own  intellectual  powers,  and  which  require  them 
to  submit  their  understanding  to  the  absolute  au- 
thority of  the  Word  of  God."*  If  the  writer  is 
not  misinformed,  at  least  one  instance  has  occur- 
red of  a  council  ordaining  and  installing  a  man, 
who,  when  examined,  avowed  his  disbelief  of  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  These  views 
must,  however,  be  regarded  as  exceptional  to  those 
generally  prevalent. 

II.     Election. 

On  this  subject  "  The  Confession  of  Faith " 
teaches  that  "  Those  of  mankind  who  are  predes- 

*  Theology  of  the  Puritans,  p.  42. 


55 


tinated  unto  life,  God  hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto 
everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and 
love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works, 
or  perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  thing  in 
the  creature  as-  conditions  or  causes  moving  him 
thereunto."     It  also  affirms  that  the  "  means  are 
foreordained,"  and  that  "  all  the  elect  are  effect- 
ually called  unto   faith   by  the    Spirit,  justified, 
adopted,  sanctified,  and  kept  through  faith  unto 
salvation."*     This  is  the  doctrine  of  all  who  have 
any   claim    to    be    regarded    as    Calvinists.     Dr. 
;Woods,   however,   acknowledges   that  there    are 
among  those  who  claim   to  be  regarded  as  ortho- 
dox, some  who  hold  the  "  Arminian  view  of  the 
doctrine  of  election,  namely,  that  the  purpose  of 
God  to  save  sinners  rests  wholly  upon  his  fore- 
knowledge   of  their  repentance,   faith,   and    obe- 
dience."    How  many  hold  these  views  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  ascertain.     It  is,  however,  believed  to  be  a 
fact  that  "  orthodox "   ministers  very  generally,  if 
not  universally,  exchange,  on   equal  terms,  with 
avowed  Arminians.     It  is  also   believed  to   be  a 
fact,  that  there  is  little,  or  no  appreciable  differ- 
ence, as  to  the  principles  they  ordinarily  preach. 
Yet  the  formal  creed  of  the  mass  of  "  orthodox  " 
ministers  is  doubtless  Calvinistic,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  Arminianism. 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  Ill,  Sec.  5  and  6. 


56 


III.     Adam's  Relation  to  Ms  Posterity, 

On  this  subject  the  doctrine  of  the  Westmin- 
ster standards  is,  that  "  our  first  parents  being  the 
root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  their  first  sin  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted 
nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity  descending 
from  them  by  ordinary  generation."* — "  The  cove- 
nant being  made  with  Adam  as  a  public  person, 
not  for  himself  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind 
descending  from  him  *  *  *  sinned  in  him  and  fell 
with  him  in  that  first  transgression."! — "  The  sin- 
fulness of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  consist- 
eth,"  they  say  among  other  things,  "  in  the  guilt 
of  Adam's  first  sin."  J — "  We  are  by  nature  chil- 
dren of  wrath,  and  justly  liable  to  all  punishments 
in  this  world  and  in  that  which  is  to  come."|| 
There  are  some  among  the  orthodox  who  hold 
this  doctrine.  Among  these,  Dr.  Woods,  during 
the  last  years  of  his  life  at  least,  claimed  to  be 
numbered.  In  his  lectures,  as  published,  he  vin- 
dicates what  he  understood  to  be  the  Westmin- 
ster doctrine  on  this  subject,  as  well  as  the  pro- 
priety of  using  the  phraseology  employed  in  those 
standards.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe,  how- 
ever, that  this  is  not  the  prevalent  doctrine  in 
New  England.  Dr.  Woods,  in  his  Letters  to  Uni- 
tarians, declared  : — "  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  VI,  Sec.  3.     t  L.  Cat.  Q.  23.      J  L.  Cat.  Q.  25. 
||  L.  Cat.  Q.  27. 


57 


to  his  posterity,  in  any  sense  which  those  words 
naturally  and  properly  convey,  is  a  doctrine  which 
we  do  not  believe*  The  editors  of  the  Congrega- 
tionalist  bear  testimony  to  the  correctness  of  this 
statement.  They  say,  speaking  of  the  above  ex- 
tract and  its  context — "  It  admirably  sets  forth  the 
true  position  of  New  England  divines."!  The 
Doctrinal  Book  and  Tract  Society — an  associa- 
tion organized  for  the  express  purpose  of  dissemi- 
nating what  its  members  regard  as  the  truth,  and 
in  which  all  parties  are  united,  in  No.  2  of  its  Se- 
ries of  Tracts,  says  : — "  Sin,  as  well  as  holiness,  is 
strictly  personal,  and  cannot  be  transferred  from 
one  to  another.  By  this  it  is  meant,  that  no  sinful 
act  of  one  person  can  ever  become  the  sinful  act 
of  another  person.  Although  fallen  Adam's  pos- 
terity are  constituted  sinners  by  means  of  their 
connection  with  him  as  their  public  head,  yet  his 
sin  is  not  their  sin.  God  declares — '  The  soul  that 
sinneth,  it  shall  die  ;'  and,  in  connection  with  this, 
he  teaches  that  no  person  shall  bear  the  iniquity 
of  another,  but  only  his  own ;  that  no  person  shall 
be  punished  for  the  sin  of  another,  but  only  for  his 
own  sin.  Thus,  it  appears,  that  in  consequence 
of  the  first  offence  of  the  first  man,  all  his  de- 
scendants have  become  sinners.":): 

This  language  is  introduced  in  such  a  connec- 
tion that  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  it  was  intend- 
ed to  state  what  is  regarded  as  the  truth  in  oppo- 

*  p.  44.       t  June  32, 1S49.       t  p.  1  and  2. 


58 


sition  to  the  ancient  doctrine.  Prof.  Pond,  after 
describing  the  old  theology  on  this  subject  says  : — 
"  I  think  there  are  few  clergymen  in  New  England 
now,  who  would  explain  the  connection  of  our  sin 
with  that  of  Adam  in  this  way."*  Professor  Park's 
theory  has  no  place  for  this  doctrine  :  indeed  it 
seems  to  be  absolutely  inconsistent  with  it.  Prof. 
Stuart,  with  much  learning  and  ingenuity  com- 
bated the  doctrines  of  Adam's  Federal  Headship 
and  the  imputation  of  his  sin.  He  teaches  "  that 
all  of  Adam's  posterity  are  affected  by  his  offence, 
and  have  sustained  great  losses  thereby,  and  are 
subjected  to  many  evils/'  "  But  this,"  he  claims, 
"is  something  very  different  from  proper  punish- 
ment. The  fall  of  Adam  brought  our  race  into  a 
new  state  of  probation.  The  whole  race  are  now 
heirs  by  nature  of  a  frail  and  dying  condition ; 
they  are  no  longer  in  that  state  in  which  they  are 
inclined  to  holiness.  And  this  comes  on  all  with- 
out any  concurrence  of  their  own.  But  this  may 
still  be  regarded  in  another  light  than  that  of  sim- 
ple punishment.  It  is  trial :  it  is  discipline  :  it  is 
probation  sui  generis"^  The  Old  School  doc- 
trine, Dr.  Taylor  rejected  with  indignation.  "  To 
believe  this,"  he  exclaims,  "  I  must  renounce  the 
reason  God  has  given  me ;  I  must  believe  it  also 
in  the  face  of  the  oath  of  God  to  its  falsehood 
entered  on  the  record."J  Dr.  Dwight  does  not 
teach   Adam's  federal  headship  ;  he  argues  that 

*  Sketches  of  N.  E.  Theology,  No.  8.    f  Stuart  on  the  Romans,  p.  595. 
%  Concio  ad  clerum. 


59 


the  posterity  of  Adam  are  neither  guilty  of  his 
transgression  nor  punished  for  it :  the  simple  pro- 
position, "that  in  consequence  of  the  apostacy  of 
Adam  all  men  have  sinned,"  embodies  his  whole 
doctrine  on  the  subject.*  Emmons  and  Hopkins 
both  discarded  the  Westminster  doctrine.  This  is 
well  known.  It  may  therefore  be  affirmed  with 
all  confidence,  that  the  doctrine  of  Adam's  federal 
headship  and  the  imputation  of  his  sin,  is  not  a 
doctrine  of  the  theology  prevailing  in  New  Eng- 
land. Some  think  that  the  New  England  doc- 
trine differs  from  the  Westminster  doctrine  on  this 
subject  only  in  the  language  employed  to  express 
it.  We  think  differently.  The  two  doctrines 
seem  to  us  palpably  diverse.  Hopkins,  Emmons, 
Dwight,  Taylor,  Stuart,  and  others  were  certainly 
able  to  comprehend  the  meaning  of  terms ;  and 
beyond  all  doubt  they  rejected  not  merely  what 
they  considered  objectionable  phraseology  but 
also  a  well-defined  principle,  which  they  certainly 
well  understood. 

IV.     Sin  and  Depravity, 

On  this  subject  the  Confession  of  Faith  teaches 
that  our  first  parents  being  "the  root  of  all  man- 
kind *  *  *  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted 
nature  were  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descend- 
ing from  them  by  ordinary  generation."     "  This 

*  Sermon  32. 


60 


corruption  of  nature,  both  itself  and  all  the  mo- 
tions thereof  are  truly  and  properly  sin."*  And 
the  Shorter  Catechism  teaches  that  "the  sinful- 
ness of  that  state  whereinto  man  fell  consists  in 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original 
righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  his  whole  na- 
ture, which  is  commonly  called  original  sin,  to- 
gether with  all  actual  transgressions  which  pro- 
ceed from  it."f  "  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity 
to  or  transgression  of  the  law  of  God."J 

On  this  subject,  New  England  divines  differ. 
Some  hold  to  the  old  doctrine  of  a  sinful,  corrupt, 
depraved  nature  in  man,  antecedent  to  all  sinful 
acts.  Such  is  the  position  of  Dwight  and  Woods. 
They  believe  in  original  sin,  as  well  as  actual. 
Others,  again,  maintain  that  all  sin  consists  in 
acts  or  exercises  contrary  to  God's  law,  and  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  sinful  nature  or  dispo- 
sition antecedent  to  sinful  exercises.  These  are 
pre-eminently  the  New  School.  In  this  funda- 
mental principle,  the  regular  Hopkinsians,  New 
Haven  divines,  and  Emmonites,  all  agree.  The 
"  Exercise  "  men,  as  they  are  called,  however,  dif- 
fer among  themselves.  Some  admit  the  existence 
of  a  propensity  or  disposition  to  sin,  but  deny  that 
this  propensity  or  disposition  is  at  all  sinful. 
Others  refuse  to  admit  that  there  is,  in  any  man, 
any  such  bias,  but  maintain  that  all  exercises  of 
the  soul  are  the  direct  result  of  the  divine  efficiency. 

*  Chap,  vi :  Sect.  3  and  5.       f  Q.  IS.       %  Q.  14. 


61 


The  former  call  Hopkins  father,  the  latter  Em-   I 
mons.     The  New  Haven  men  plead  that  infants   ! 
come  into  the  world  as  free  from  sin  as  Adam, 
and  that  they  are  not  subjects  of  moral  govern- 
ment until  they  become  moral  agents.     The  ad- 
vocates of  this  scheme,  commonly  known  as  the 
"  Exercise   Scheme,"  are  neither  few  nor   feeble. 
Taylor  and  his  coadjutors  were  its  avowed  cham- 
pions.    Prof.  Park,  of  Andover,  in  his  "  Conven-; 
tion  Sermon,"  and  in  his  controversy  with  Prof. 
Hodge  growing  out  of  it,  boldly  avowed  and  earn- 
estly maintained  there  is  no  nature  in  man  ante- 
cedent to  sinful  acts  that  can  truly  and  properly  > 
be  called  sinful.    "  That  all  sin  consists  in  action,"  I 
Dr.   Dana   declares   to   be    Prof.    Park's    favorite 
maxim. 

These  principles — which  are  throughout  totally 
inconsistent  with  the  old  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
which  indeed  cut  it  up  root  and  branch — are  be- 
lieved to  be  widely  prevalent.  They  have  been 
long  taught  at  New  Haven  and  Andover — the 
leading  orthodox  theological  seminaries  in  New 
England.  They  are  asserted  and  defended  by  the 
most  prominent  and  influential  divines.  The  edi- 
tors of  the  Panoplist,  in  their  introductory  ad- 
dress,* say  : — "  For  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years, 
the  great  doctrines  of  original  sin  and  regenera- 
tion, as  they  were  understood  by  the  reformers 
and  the  churches  of  the  Reformation,  have  been 

*  Vol.  I,  p.  12 


62 


assailed  with  the  same  arts,  and  for  the  most  part 
with  the  same  arguments  and  objections,  which 
they  encounter  among  Socinians  and  infidels." 
"  The  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  New  School  in 
theology  is  this  ;  that  there  is,  and  can  be  nothing 
holy  or  sinful  in  any  intelligent  being  aside  from 
his  acts  ;  that  all  the  inherent  inclinations,  dispo- 
sitions, and  affections  of  the  soul,  are  innocent, 
neither  holy  nor  sinful ;  that  Adam  came  into  this 
world  without  any  inherent  holiness,  his  moral  ex- 
cellence originating  with  himself,  and  his  posterity 
come  into  life  with  no  dispositions  or  inclinations 
morally  wrong.  This  is  also  the  fundamental 
principle  of  Pelagianism,  which  necessarily  leads 
to  all  the  rest,  and  can  end  only  in  gross  rational- 
ism, or  infidelity,  which  has  always  been  the  issue 
of  this  doctrine.  It  was  also  the  fundamental 
principle  of  New  England  Arminianism,  whose 
developments  have  been  Socinianism  and  Pan- 
theism." This  theology,  they  declare,  has  affected 
a  "great  portion  of  the  Congregational  churches." 
On  these  extracts  the  editors  of  the  Congregation- 
alist  remark : — "  Why  limit  the  prevalence  of  this 
peculiar  type  of  theology  to  the  last  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  ?  Do  not  the  editors  know,  that 
what  is  here  denominated  the  fundamental  princi- 
ple of  the  New  School  theology,  i.  e.,  that  all  sin 
consists  in  action,  has  been  very  generally  held  in 
New  England,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  out  of 
it,  for  more  than  fifty  years ;  that  it  was  the  the- 
ology of  Hopkins   and   Emmons,  of  West  and 


63 


Spring,  and  the  men  of  that  day — names  great  and 
venerable;  that  it  was  the  chief  distinguishing  fea- 
ture  of  that  school    and   system,  called,  from  its 
illustrious  founder,  the  Hopkinsian  ;  that  it  is  the 
theology  not  only  of  some  of  the   ablest  and  best 
men    now   living,   but  of  the    greatest   and    best 
names  on  the  roll  of  American  divines  for  the  last 
half  century;  that  it  is   the  theology  of  the  very, 
men  whose  writings  the   Doctrinal  Tract  Society 
are   engaged   at  this  very   time  in  publishing?"* 
When  Mr.  Finney  was  in  Boston,  something  more 
than  twenty  years  ago,   he  preached  this  "funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the    New    School  theology."    | 
His  position   was  severely  reviewed  in  a  religious 
journal  of  that  city.     Something  of  a  controversy 
followed.     In  a  review  of  the  whole  subject,  the 
"  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims"  says  : — "  A  vast  majority 
of  the  orthodox  clergy  of  New  England  might  be 
represented,  on  this  ground,  as  denying  the  <  doc- 
trine of  entire  depravity,'  with  the  same  propriety 
as  Mr.  Finney ;  for  they  agree  with   him  in  dis 
carding  the  notion  of  a  sinful  bias  or  taste,  as  dis 
tinct  from,  and  prior  to,   sinful   exercises  of  the 
will."f     Many  of  those  among  New  England  di- 
vines, who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  an  original,  de- 
praved nature,  seem  to  regard  those  who  maintain 
the  "  Exercise  Scheme"   as   equally  entitled   with 
themselves  to  be  styled  "  orthodox."     Dr.  Woods 
pleads  a  compromise.     Dr.  Pond  speaks  of  "this 

*  Cong.  Feb.  1,  1850.        t  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrim?,  vol.  v.,  p.  161. 


64 


difference  as  existing  among  our  soundest  theolo- 
gians," and  "  as  in  practice  amounting  to  very  lit- 
tle." He  says : — "  It  has  proved  no  bar  to  frater- 
nal union  and  cooperation,  and  expresses  a  hope 
that  it  may  be  so  in  time  to  come."*  Prof.  Park 
has  for  many  years  occupied  the  most  important 
chair  in  the  most  important  theological  institution 
in  New  England.  He  has  boldly  taught  this  and 
kindred  doctrines  all  along,  and  teaches  them  still. 
The  venerable  Dr.  Dana,  an  eminent  Old  School  di- 
vine, who  has  been  a  member  of  the  board  of  trus- 
tees from  the  beginning,  remonstrated  more  than 
five  years  ago.  Little  attention  was  given  to  his 
solemn  words.  All  now  seems  quiet.  The  num- 
ber of  students  at  Andover  has  not  apparently 
been  diminished  by  this  cause.  Prof.  Park  is  se- 
cure in  his  place.  Now  what  do  these  facts  tell  ? 
Simply  this  :  The  orthodox  sentiment  in  Massachu- 
setts sustains  the  Professor  of  Christian  Theology 
at  Andover.  It  is  true  that  some — we  might,  per- 
haps, say  many — do  not  approve  his  teachings  on 
this  subject.  They  lament  the  position  of  things 
and  would  gladly  see  it  altered.  Yet  we  cannot 
see  how  the  conclusion  can  be  avoided,  that  the 
popular  voice  endorses  Prof.  Park,  or  also  agrees 
with  Dr.  Pond,  in  believing  the  difference  between 
him  and  the  Old  School,  to  amount  in  practice  to 
very  little.  A  review  of  all  the  facts  certainly  jus- 
tifies us  in  affirming  that  the  doctrine  of  original 

*  Sketches,  etc.,  via. 


65 


native  depravity  is  not  a  principle  of  the   prevail- 
ing theology  of  New  England. 


V.     Human  Inability, 

The  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  this 
subject  is  expressed  in  the  following  terms : — "  By 
this  original  corruption  we  are  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and 
wholly  inclined  to  all  evil."* — "  Man  by  his  fall 
hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual 
good  accompanying  salvation  :  so,  as  a  natural 
man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that  good  and 
dead  in  sin,  is  not  able  by  his  own  strength,  to 
convert  himself  or  prepare  himself  thereunto."f — 
The  Catechism  says  :  "  No  mere  man  since  the 
fall  is  able  in  this  life  perfectly  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  God."J  This  plain  and  unequivocal 
language  is  regarded  by  Old  School  divines  as 
an  admirable  exhibition  of  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture on  this  subject.  Since  the  days  of  Edwards, 
however,  theologians  of  all  classes  have  been  ac- 
customed to  speak  of  man  as  possessing  full  na- 
tural ability  to  keep  God's  law,  but  as  destitute  of 
moral  ability — as  naturally  able,  but  morally  una- 
ble to  do  God's  bidding.  This  phraseology  has 
been,  and  still  is,  employed  in  widely  different 
senses.     Under  it  one  man  teaches  Scripture  truth,  1 

*  Chap,  vi :  Sect.  4.  f  Chap,  ix  :  Sect.  3.         }  Quest.  82. 

6» 


66 


another  soul-destroying  error.  The  Old  School 
man,  wishing  to  employ  the  phraseology  immor- 
talized by  the  elder  Edwards,  concedes  man's  na- 
tural ability — understanding  thereby  those  powers 
and  faculties  necessary  to  constitute  a  moral 
agent.  At  the  same  time  he  asserts  strongly 
man's  moral  inability — understanding  thereby  the 
native  depravity  or  enmity  of  the  human  heart 
against  God — and  thus  leaves  on  the  minds  of 
men  a  deep  sense  of  their  absolute  helplessness 
because  of  sin.  The  New  School  man,  conceding 
man's  moral  inability — understanding  thereby  a 
fixed  unwillingness  to  render  obedience  to  God's 
law — affirms  most  earnestly  his  complete  natural 
ability,  understanding  thereby  that  he  comes  into 
this  world  fully  equipped  with  all  that  is  necessary 
to  qualify  him  for  keeping  perfectly  God's  com- 
mandments, and  hence  teaches  the  proposition 
"that  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  a  man's  loving 
God,  and  obeying  him  perfectly,  but  his  own  un- 
willingness,"— "  that  ability  is  commensurate  with 
responsibility."  From  such  instructions  the  sinner 
goes  away  with  the  belief  that  he  can  be  perfectly 
holy  the  moment  he  chooses.  At  present  those 
who  are  really  solicitous  to  teach  men  their  de- 
pendence on  God  for  converting  and  sanctifying 
grace,  discard  this  ancient  distinction  as  embar- 
rassing and  likely  to  convey  erroneous  views  in 
spite  of  all  the  care  the  preacher  can  take.  Of  this 
class  Dr.  Woods  is  a  notable  example.  In  plain 
Scripture  language,  he  teaches  man's  inability  in 


67 


the  broadest  and  most  absolute  sense,  and  points 
out  his  desperate  wickedness  or  depravity  of  na- 
ture as  that  in  which  it  consists.  There  are  those 
among  the  "  orthodox,"  whose  views  on  this  sub- 
ject and  modes  of  presenting  it  agree  with  those 
of  Dr.  Woods. 

There  is,  however,  reason  to  believe  that  the 
prevailing  theology  on  this  subject  is  something 
very  different.  We  may  ascertain  it  with  a  good 
degree  of  accuracy,  by  examining  the  teachings  of 
the  theological  seminaries. 

Dr.  Tyler,  of  East  Windsor,  Conn. — president 
of  a  seminary  founded  for  the  express  purpose  of 
maintaining  a  testimony  for  truth  betrayed  at 
New  Haven — in  a  recent  sermon,  preached  and 
published  with  the  view  of  correcting  what  he 
deemed  erroneous  opinions  gaining  currency  in 
that  neighborhood,  affirms  as  his  main  proposi- 
tion, that  "  God  does  not  require  of  man  what  he 
has  no  power  to  do."  In  his  discussion  he  con- 
cedes man's  inability,  but  places  it  altogether  in 
want  of  inclination  to  obedience.  Throughout 
his  entire  discourse  he  gives  great  prominence  to 
man's  .natural  ability,  and  adduces  a  variety  of 
considerations  to  prove  it.  The  whole  drift  of  his 
argument  is  to  lessen,  or  explain  away  man's  ina- 
bility, and  exalt  his  ability.  The  tendency  of  the 
discourse  is  to  weaken  in  the  mind  of  the  sinner 
the  sense  of  dependence  on  divine  grace.  Dr. 
Harvey — an  Old  School  Presbyterian  of  Thomp- 
sonville — took  the  professor  to  task  for  his  sermon. 


68 


Dr.  Tyler  replied,  assuring  Dr.  Harvey  that  all  he 
meant  in  vindicating  man's  natural  ability,  was 
to  teach  that  he  is  a  free  agent.  Whereupon  Dr. 
Harvey  reads  him  a  timely  lecture  on  the  proper 
use  of  terms,  and  suggests  the  propriety  of  em- 
ploying language  that  will  convey  his  meaning, 
and  not  something  the  very  opposite.  Dr.  Tyler 
published  another  sermon  a  good  many  years  ago, 
in  which  he  lays  down  as  his  main  proposition, 
that  "  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  the  salvation  of 
any  man  but  his  own  will."  In  the  same  discourse 
he  affirms  "that  man  has  perfect  ability  to  comply 
with  the  terms  of  salvation,  if  he  will."  In  another 
sermon,  published  about  the  same  time,  he  uses 
the  following  language  :  "  How  many  hear  the 
gospel,  upon  whom  it  produces  no  salutary  effect. 
And  why  ?  Not  because  they  are  incapable  of 
yielding  to  the  motives  of  the  gospel,  but  because 
they  resist  those  motives."  "  It  will  not  avail  the 
sinner  to  plead  he  has  no  power  to  obey.  He  has 
power.  If  he  has  power  to  sin,  he  has  power  to 
cease  from  sinning — if  he  has  power  to  rebel 
against  God,  he  has  power  to  submit  to  God.  He 
has  all  the  power  he  needs  :  all  indeed,  which  he 
can  possess.  If  God  were  to  renew  his  heart  this 
moment,  his  power  would  not  be  increased ;  he 
would  only  be  willing  to  use  aright  the  power 
which  he  now  abuses  and  perverts."  "  When  God 
works  in  men  to  will  and  to  do,  it  is  not  to  enable 
men  to  do  their  duty;  but  to  incline  them  to  do 
what  they  are  able  to  do  and  what  they  ought  to 


69 


do  without  any  supernatural  divine  influence." 
In  time  the  Doctor  was  quoted  by  the  Congrega- 
tionalist  as  favoring  the  New  School  theology.* 
Soon  after  he  comes  forward  with  sundry  explana- 
tions, seemingly  intended  to  show  that  his  true 
meaning  was  something  very  different  from  what 
his  language  imports.  In  the  recent  controversy, 
growing  out  of  the  Enfield  case,  he  avowed  views 
on  this  subject  which  Old  School  men  generally 
will  accept  as  sound.  Yet  if  we  are  to  take  his 
published  sermons  as  specimens  of  his  method  of 
teaching  the  doctrine,  there  can  be  but  little  doubt 
but  that  his  influence  contributes  to  swell  the  tide 
of  error  on  this  subject. 

The  position  occupied  by  Prof.  Park  renders  it 
particularly  important  to  ascertain  his  views  and 
teachings  on  this  subject.  Dr.  Dana  says  : — "  His 
views  of  human  ability  are  extravagant  and  ex- 
treme. They  obviously  tend  to  foster  in  man  a 
spirit  of  pride,  of  self-sufficiency,  of  independence 
on  God,  and  emphatically  of  procrastination."! 
In  his  Convention  sermon  and  appended  notes,  he 
plainly  teaches  man's  ability  to  be  commensurate 
with  his  responsibility,  and  places  this  inability, 
of  which  he  is  subject,  in  his  unwillingness.  In 
his  controversy  with  Prof.  Hodge,  he  entered  into 
a  long  and  labored  argument  to  prove  that  the 
Edwardean  divines,  in  affirming  man's  natural 
ability,  "  meant  something  more  than  that  he  is 

*  Cong.  Nov.  21,  1851.  f  Remonstrance,  p.  24. 


70 


possessed  of  natural  capacities  of  soul  and  body." 
He  quotes,  with  approbation,  the  following  from 
Dr.  Emmons  : — "  Unrenewed  men  are  as  able  to 
do  right,  as  to  do  wrong ;  and  to  do  their  duty,  as 
to  neglect  their  duty  ;  to  love  God  as  to  hate  God, 
to  choose  life  as  to  choose  death  ;  to  walk  in  the 
narrow  way  to  life,  as  in  the  broad  way  to  hell  ;" 
"  as  able  to  embrace  the  gospel  as  a  thirsty  man  is 
to  drink  water,  or  a  hungry  man  to  eat  the  most 
delicious  food."  "  They  can  love  God,  repent  of 
sin,  and  believe  in  Christ,  and  perform  every  re- 
ligious duty,  as  well  as  they  can  think,  or  speak, 
or  walk."  .  And  the  following  from  Dr.  Smalley : — 
"It  must  be  granted  that  we  do  generally  suppose 
a  man's  present  duty  cannot  exceed  his  present 
strength,  suppose  it  to  have  been  impaired  by  what 
means  it  may."  "  And  this"  says  Prof.  Park,  " is 
the  common  representation  of  the  l  Exercise  School?  " 
"  It  is  the  common  remark  of  the  Edwardean 
school,  that  men  have  no  inability  to  repent  ex- 
cept their  unwillingness."  "  The  doctrine  of  New 
England  is,  that  any  powerlessness  in  the  original, 
literal,  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  is  incompati- 
ble with  obligation."*  Such  is  the  theology  taught 
in  the  most  prominent  theological  seminary,  and 
in  the  leading  theological  quarterly  in  New  Eng- 
land. 

On  this  subject  the  influence  of  East  Windsor 
and  Andover  seem  to  be  in  the   same  direction. 

*  Bib.  Sac,  Jan. ,1859. 


71 


The  New  Haven  theology  is  well  known.  Most 
likely  no  antagonism  exists  at  Bangor.  Prof.  Pond 
would  hardly  find  any  good  reason  for  rejecting 
the  language  of  his  ancient  instructor,  Dr.  Em- 
mons. 

The  Boston  Congregationalist,  under  date  of 
Decemeer  14,  1849,  has  the  following  language  in 
its  editorial  columns  in  relation  to  the  answer  in 
the  Catechism  to  the  question — "  Is  any  man  able 
perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God  ?" — 
"  It  cannot  be  true  that  we  are  not  able  to  keep 
that  law.  We  need  no  better  proof  that  we  can 
keep  it  than  the  simple  fact  that  God  requires  us 
to  do  so.  We  have  always  regarded  the  above 
answer  in  the  Catechism  as  conveying  an  idea 
which  either  is  not  intended,  or  if  intended,  is  al- 
together false  and  unsound  in  theology.  That  no 
mere  man  can  possibly  keep  the  divine  law  in  this 
life,  is  by  no  means  true."  This  language  is  clear 
and  explicit. 

The  Doctrinal  Book  and  Tract  Society  teach, 
in  No.  23  of  their  series,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
necessary  merely  because  men  are  unwilling  to 
receive  the  gospel.  "  Had  they  a  willing  mind, 
the  work  would  be  done."*  In  No.  8  we  find  the 
following  language  : — u  A  sinful  man  can  become 
holy — the  non-elect  can  comply  with  the  terms  of 
the  gospel — they  are  just  as  able  to  repent  and 
believe  the  gospel  as  the  elect — as  capable   of  do- 


p.7. 


72 


ing  right  as  doing  wrong — it  is  proper  to  say  they 
can  do  what  they  are  willing  to  do."* 

These  views,  there  can    be    no  doubt,  prevail 
among  the  orthodox  in  New  England. 


VI.     Christ's  Satisfaction. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Standards  on 
this  subject  is  expressed  in  the  following  terms  : — 
"  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and 
sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he  through  the  Eternal 
Spirit  once  offered  up  to  God,  has  fully  satisfied 
the  justice  of  his  father:  and  purchased  not  only 
reconciliation,  but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  all  those  whom  the 
father  hath  given  unto  him."f  This  is  usually  re- 
garded as  the  doctrine,  substantially  set  forth  by 
Dr.  Woods  in  his  published  lectures.  It  will  also 
be  difficult  to  make  good  a  charge  of  heresy  on 
this  subject  against  Dr.  Hopkins.  His  neighbor, 
Dr.  Stiles,  a  thorough  going  old-Calvinist,  while 
finding  fault  with  some  of  Hopkins'  disciples,  for 
"denying  a  real  vicarious  suffering  in  Christ's 
atonement,"  admitted  that  Hopkins  himself  "dif- 
fered from  them,  and  held  the  atonement  in  a  just 
and  scriptural  sense."  Edwards  and  all  the  great 
orthodox  divines  who  preceded  him  in  New  Eng- 
land, taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession.  Even 
yet  there  are  those  who  believe  it  and   preach   it. 

*p.  4.  t  Chap,  viii :  Sect.  5. 


73 


Dr.  Woods,  however,  informs  us  that  erroneous 
opinions  on  this  subject  exist  among  the  orthodox. 
He  states  them  in  the  following  terms  : — "  Christ 
did  not  die  in  the  place  of  sinners,  as  a  vicarious 
sacrifice,  to  satisfy  divine  justice  and  procure  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  but  merely  to  make  an  affect- 
ing demonstration  of  God's  perfect  readiness  to 
save  sinners,  and  by  a  striking  instance  of  pa- 
tience and  quiet  submission  in  suffering  to  win 
their  hearts  to  love  and  obedience."*  From  other 
sources  we  learn  that  the  New  England  doctrine 
of  the  atonement  is  something  different  from  that 
which  formerly  prevailed,  very  nearly  identical 
with  what  Dr.  Woods  calls  an  erroneous  opinion. 
Dr.  Pond  throws  much  valuable  light  on  the  sub- 
ject. He  says  : — "  The  doctrine  of  atonement, 
which  seems  not  to  have  been  touched  by  Presi- 
dent Edwards,  except  as  involved  in  the  more 
general  subject  of  redemption,  was  very  lucidly 
treated  by  his  son,  and  by  Rev.  Dr.  West,  of 
Stockbridge.  To  these  men,  more  than  to  any 
others,  are  the  theologians  of  New  England  in- 
debted for  the  clear  and  consistent  views  which 
now  generally  prevail  in  relation  to  this  vital  topic. 
The  distinction  between  atonement  and  redemp- 
tion ;  the  universality  of  the  former  as  to  its  suffi- 
ciency, and  the  particularity  of  the  latter  as  to  its 
application ;  the  entire  consistency  between  full 
satisfaction,  on  the  one  hand,  and  free  grace  in 

*  Puritan  Theology,  p.  41. 


74 


forgiveness  on  the  other ;  these  are  points,  which, 
so  far  as  I  know,  had  never  been  clearly  stated 
and  established,  previous  to  the  publications  of 
the  younger  Edwards  and  of  Dr.  West."* 

Dr.  Pond  gives  us  to  understand  that  the  views 
which  now  generally  prevail,  on  this  subject,  are 
more  clear  and  consistent  than  the  ancient  doc- 
trine and  authorizes  us  to  look  to  Dr.  Edwards  as 
their  expounder.  It  is  therefore  important  to  as- 
certain what  are  the  teachings  of  that  celebrated 
divine.  *They  are  fully  set  forth  in  his  Sermons  on 
the  Atonement — "  preached  before  His  Excellency 
the  Governor,  and  a  large  number  of  both  houses 
of  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  dur- 
ing their  sessions  at  New  Haven,  in  October,  1785, 
and  published  by  request."  The  difficulty  of  re- 
conciling the  great  truth  that  forgiveness  of  sins  is 
in  consequence  of  the  riches  of  Divine  grace,  with 
the  commonly  received  doctrine  of  the  atonement, 
led  him  to  endeavor  after  some  other  view  of  the 
subject,  that  would  not  be  exposed  to  these  diffi- 
culties. "  If  the  sinner's  debt  be  paid,  how  does 
it  appear  that  there  is  any  pardon  or  grace  in  his 
deliverance  ?"  he  asks.  "  By  this  difficulty,"  he 
says  in  his  introduction  to  the  discussion  of  this 
subject,  "some  have  been  induced  to  reject  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  redemption,  satisfaction,  or 
atonement.  Others  who  have  not  been  driven  to 
that  extremity  by  this  difficulty,  yet  have  been  ex- 

*  Sketches,  etc.,  No.  5. 


75 


ceedingly  perplexed  and  embarrassed.  Of  these 
last  I  freely  admit  myself  to  have  been  one.  Hav- 
ing from  my  youth  devoted  myself  to  the  study  of 
theoretic  and  practical  theology,  I  have  regarded 
this  as  one  of  the  Gordian  knots  in  that  science." 
His  theory  he  regards  as  a  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem. The  Gordian  knot  he  professes  to  untie,  not 
cut.  While  he  maintains  that  we  are  forgiven 
through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  can  be  for- 
given in  no  other  way,  he  also  asserts  as  a  princi- 
ple fundamental  to  his  theory,  that  "  the  atone- 
ment does  not  consist  in  the  payment  of  a  debt, 
properly  so  called."  The  reason  why  an  atone- 
ment is  necessary  to  the  pardon  of  a  sinner  is  the 
same  why  his  punishment  would  have  been  neces- 
sary if  no  atonement  had  been  made.  It  is  neces- 
sary, as  he  says,  to  maintain  the  dignity  and 
authority  of  the  lawgiver,  as  well  as  the  consis- 
tency between  the  legislative  and  executive  de- 
partments of  his  government.  His  definition  of 
the  atonement  corresponds  with  his  reasons  for  its 
necessity.  "  It  consists,"  he  says,  "  in  doing  that 
which,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  author- 
ity of  the  Divine  law,  and  of  supporting  in  due 
time  the  Divine  government,  is  equivalent  to  the 
punishment  of  the  sinner  according  to  the  letter  of 
the  law."  Although  he  speaks  of  Christ  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  sinners,  yet  he  does  not  use  the  term  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  is  ordinarily  employed  by 
Calvinistic  writers  discussing  this  subject.  His 
meaning  is  that  the   atonement  is  the  substitute 


76 


for  the  punishment  threatened  in  the  law.  and  was 
intended  to  accomplish  the  same  ends  in  relation 
to  God's  law  and  government.  He  does  not  teach 
that  Christ,  standing  in  the  "room  and  stead"  of 
|  his  elect,  pays  their  debt,  or  endures  the  penalty 
due  to  their  sins ;  his  sufferings  and  death,  how- 
ever, he  regards  as  equivalent  to  the  eternal  pun- 
ishment of  the  sinner,  as  far  as  the  maintenance 
of  the  authority  and  dignity  of  his  law  and  gov- 
ernment is  concerned. 

In  expounding  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement, 
he  speaks  of  three  kinds  of  justice — commutative, 
distributive,  and  general.  Commutative  justice, 
he  says,  respects  property,  and  requires  that  every 
man  should  receive  the  payment  of  his  debts. 
Now  the  atonement,  hie  pleads,  has  no  respect  to 
this  kind  of  justice  at  all.  It  is  not  the  payment 
of  any  of  our  debts.  It  does  not,  therefore,  satisfy 
commutative  justice.  Distributive  justice  has  re- 
spect to  man's  personal  character  or  conduct,  and 
requires  that  virtue,  or  good  conduct,  should  be 
rewarded,  and  crimes,  or  vicious  conduct,  punished. 
The  atonement,  he  claims,  has  no  respect  what- 
ever to  this  kind  of  justice,  since  man  just  as  much 
deserves  punishment  as  though  Christ  had  made 
no  atonement.  If  Christ,  by  his  sufferings  and 
death,  had  satisfied  distributive  justice,  then,  he 
argues,  forgiveness  would  not  have  been  of  grace, 
but  of  debt — nothing  more  than  man's  due.  But 
the  atonement  does  not  satisfy  this  kind  of  justice  ; 
and  hence,  he  reasons,  forgiveness  is  a  grace,   a 


77 


free  gift,  because,  notwithstanding  the  atonement, 
man  deserves  death  just  as  much  as  if  Christ  had 
never  died.  General  or  public  justice,  he  says, 
comprehends  all  moral  goodness,  and  requires  that 
the  thing  which  is  right  be  done.  To  practise 
justice,  in  this  sense  of  the  term,  is  to  act  agreea- 
bly to  the  dictates  of  general  benevolence.  And 
the  pardon  of  the  sinner  is,  according  to  this  view 
of  the  subject,  an  act  of  justice,  because  it  is  un- 
doubtedly most  conducive  to  the  divine  glory  and 
general  good  of  the  created  system,  that  every  be- 
liever in  Christ  should  be  pardoned.  The  atone- 
ment satisfies  this  kind  of  justice,  because  it  was 
right  and  proper  that  it  should  be  made,  and  tends 
to  the  greatest  good  of  intelligent  beings.  This 
sense  of  the  word  justice  is,  however,  he  tells  us, 
an  improper  one,  and  hence  he  claims  that  the 
atonement,  in  no  proper  sense  of  the  term,  satisfies 
justice,  nor  is  forgiveness  an  act  of  justice.  Dr. 
Edwards  regarded  the  efficiency  of  the  atonement 
as  consisting  in  this,  that,  in  consequence  of  it, 
God  can  pardon  and  save  sinners,  and  still  main- 
tain the  dignity  and  authority  of  his  government. 
It  secures  nothing.  It  only  opens  up  the  way  for 
God's  mercy  and  grace  to  go  forth.  How  it  ope- 
rates to  accomplish  this  end,  he  does  not  tell  us. 
His  theory  renders  necessary  a  departure  from  the 
common  phraseology  on  the  subject ;  yet  he  still 
uses  it  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  thus  not  un- 
frequently  seems  to  teach  a  doctrine  different  from 
that  which  he  really  holds. 

7* 


78 


Such  are  what  Prof.  Pond  styles  "  the  clear  and 
consistent  views  now  generally  prevalent  on  this 
vital  topic." 

Dr.  Emmons'  views  very  nearly  accord  with 
those  of  Dr.  Edwards.  A  few  propositions  will 
clearly  set  them  forth.  All  that  was  necessary 
was  that  the  way  should  be  opened  up,  whereby 
God,  consistently  with  his  justice,  could  forgive 
sin.  If  a  substitute  would  suffer  in  the  room  of 
sinners  God's  justice  would  be  appeased,  and  the 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  his  exercising  pardoning 
grace  removed.  Christ  became  this  substitute, 
endured  the  needful  suffering,  and  thus  atoned  for 
sin.  Christ's  obedience  to  the  law  was  no  part  of 
his  mediatorial  work — further  than  it  qualified 
him  for  suffering,  as  the  lamb  must  needs  be  with- 
out blemish.  The  entire  efficacy  of  his  sufferings 
was  to  open  the  way  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
God,  in  consequence,  can  offer  salvation  to  all 
mankind,  and  bestow  it  upon  all  penitent,  believ- 
ing, returning  sinners.  All  that  the  believer  re- 
ceives for  Christ's  sake  is  forgiveness.  Christ  did 
not  endure  the  penalty  due  to  sinners — he  did  not 
endure  any  punishment  at  all — he  did  not  pay  the 
debt  sinners  owed  to  God,  either  of  suffering  or 
obedience.  The  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement 
he  rejected  totally,  contending  Christ's  death  had 
the  same  favorable  aspect  on  the  non-elect  as  the 
elect.  He  denied  that  Christ  merited  any  thing 
for  sinners.  The  very  phrase,  merits  of  Christ,  he 
discarded  as  unscriptural  and  improper.     He  says  : 


79 


"  It  is  often  designedly  or  undesignedly  used  to 
convey  the  idea  that  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and 
sufferings  on  the  cross,  paid  the  debt  of  suffering 
and  obedience  in  the  room  of  sinners,  so  that  God 
is  obliged,  in  point  of  justice,  to  release  them  from 
eternal  sufferings,  and  bestow  upon  them  eternal 
life.  This  is  a  false  and  unscriptural  sentiment, 
and  naturally  tends  to  lead  men  into  several  other 
great  and  dangerous  errors."*  "  Though  Christ 
suffered  the  just  for  the  unjust,  though  he  made 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  and  though  he  suffered 
most  excruciating  pains  in  the  garden  and  on  the 
cross,  yet  he  did  not  lay  God  under  the  least  obli- 
gation to  pardon  and  save  a  single  sinner."f 

The  views  of  Emmons,  on  some  subjects,  are 
not  received  by  many  in  New  England.  His  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement,  however,  does  not  appear 
here  to  meet  with  any  opposition.  Dr.  Dwight's 
views  of  the  atonement  conform  substantially  to 
those  of  the  younger  Edwards,  nor  do  they  differ 
materially  from  those  of  Emmons.  His  definition 
clearly  exhibits  the  sense  in  which  he  held  the 
doctrine.  "The  atonement  consists  in  making 
sufficient  amends  for  the  faults  which  men  have 
committed,  and  placing  the  law  and  government 
of  God  in  such  a  situation  that  when  sinners  are; 
pardoned,  both  shall  be  equally  honorable  and  effi- 
cacious as  before.''^  Christ  was  a  substitute,; 
equally  of  all  mankind.     He  no   more  atoned  for 

*  Works,  Vol.  V.,  p.  35.    t  Id.  p.  25.     +  Dwight's  Theology,  Vol.  II.,  p.  206. 


80 


the  elect  than  for  the  damned.  He  did  not  pay 
the  debt  his  people  owed  to  God  ;  he  only  made 
such  amends  for  the  sins  and  faults  of  men,  that 
God  might  honorably  pardon  and  save  whom  he 
would.  The  atonement  secured  nothing  ;  it  only 
rendered  salvation  possible.  The  obedience  of 
Christ  was  essentially  concerned  in  the  atone- 
ment, but  only  as  qualifying  him  to  work  it  out. 
It  was  necessary  that  Christ  should  be  holy,  that 
he  might  be  a  fit  Mediator.  Such  is  the  atone- 
ment Dwight  teaches.  He  does  not  give  the  obe- 
dience of  Christ  the  prominence,  or  hold  it  in  the 
sense  customary  among  Calvinistic  divines.  He 
does  not  exhibit  it  as  needful  to  merit  eternal  life 
for  those  for  whom  Christ  atoned  by  his  suffer- 
ings, nor  does  he  assign  it  any  separate,  independ- 
ent fuuction ;  he  subordinates  it  altogether  to  his 
propitiatory  sufferings.  He  expressly  says : — "  The 
attempts  made  to  discriminate  between  these  parts 
of  Christs's  mediation,  and  to  assign  to  each  its 
exact  proportion  of  influence  in  the  economy  of 
redemption,  seem  to  me  to  have  been  very  par- 
tially successful."*  Dr.  Dwight  has  exerted  a  pow- 
erful influence  over  the  New  England  mind. 

In  1823,  James  Murdock,  D.  D.,  Professor  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  published  a 
sermon  on  the  "  Nature  of  the  Atonement."  "  The 
sermon  was  delivered,"  he  tells  us,  in  his  adver- 
tisement, "to  an   audience  composed   chiefly   of 

*Dwight's  Theology,  Vol.  II.,  p.  216. 


81 


theological  students,  and  designed  to  aid  them  in 
forming  their  opinions  on  the  important  subject 
discussed."  This  fact,  together  with  the  position 
of  the  author,  renders  the  sermon  peculiarly  im- 
portant as  a  source  of  information  on  the  subject 
in  hand.  The  following  brief  extracts,  it  is  be- 
lieved, fairly  exhibit  his  doctrine.  "  The  atone- 
ment must  be  something  different  from  the  execu- 
tion of  the  law  itself:  because  it  is  to  be  a  sub- 
stitute for  it,  something  which  will  render  it  safe 
and  proper  to  suspend  the  regular  course  of  dis- 
tributive justice."  "  The  atonement  was  in  the  na- 
ture of  it  an  exhibition  of  the  righteousness  of 
God.  It  did  not  consist  in  an  execution  of  the 
law  on  any  being  whatever,  for  it  was  a  substi- 
tute for  an  execution  of  it."  "  It  did  not  fulfil  the 
law  or  satisfy  its  demands  on  transgressors."  "Its 
immediate  influence  was  not  on  the  characters 
and  relations  of  men,  as  transgressors,  nor  on  the 
claims  of  the  law  upon  thern.  Its  direct  operation 
was  on  the  feelings  and  the  apprehensions  of  the 
beings  at  large  who  are  under  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  God."  "  The  atonement  was  a  public 
exhibition ;  and  such  an  exhibition  as  would  im- 
press all  the  creatures  of  God  with  a  deep  and 
awful  sense  of  the  majesty  and  sanctity  of  his 
law,  of  the  criminality  of  disobedience  to  it,  and 
of  the  holy,  unbending  rectitude  of  God  as  a 
moral  governor."  "  It  represented  these  things 
symbolically."  "  It  did  not  satisfy  the  demands  of 
the  violated  law  upon  the  sinner."     "  All  that  it 


82 


could  do  was  to  display  the  feelings  of  God  in 
regard  to  his  law :  and  secure  by  the  impression 
it  made  the  public  objects,  which  would  be  gained 
by  an  execution  of  the  law.  It  did  not  cancel 
any  of  the  claims  of  the  law  upon  us.  And  hence 
after  the  atonement  was  made  God  was  under  no 
legal  obligations  to  exempt  any  man  from  punish- 
ment. If  he  had  never  pardoned  a  single  trans- 
gressor, neither  law  nor  distributive  justice  would 
have  been  contravened.  And  if  he  pardons  at  all, 
it  is  mere  grace.  Or  to  state  it  otherwise,  the 
atonement  was  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  require 
God  to  pardon  us,  but  it  enables  him  to  do  it, 
with  credit  to  himself  and  safety  to  his  kingdom." 
Such  were  the  views  taught  at  Andover  twenty- 
two  years  ago.  They  were  opposed,  however. 
Prof.  Stuart,  it  is  said,  published  two  discourses 
to  counteract  their  influence ;  and  Dr.  Woods, 
filling,  as  he  did,  the  chair  of  Professor  of  Chris- 
tian theology,  could  hardly  have  been  silent. 
There  must  have  been  collisions,  even  in  the  pul- 
pit of  the  Seminary.  It  might  be  difficult,  how- 
ever, to  point  out  any  real  difference  between  the 
doctrine  of  Murdock  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Ed- 
wards the  younger,  Emmons  and  Dwight,  on  the 
other. 

Prof.  Park,  in  a  note  to  his  convention  sermon, 
declares  his  dissent  from  the  views  of  Symington, 
and  gives  the  following  as  his  own  definition  of 
the  atonement : — "  A  true  representation  seems  to 
be,  that  although  Christ  has  not  literally  paid  the 


83 


debt  of  sinners,  nor  literally  borne  their  punish- 
ment, nor  satisfied  the  legislative  nor  the  remunera- 
tive justice  of  God  in  any  such  sense  or  degree  as 
itself  to  make  it  obligatory  on  him  to  save  any 
sinners,  yet  the  atonement  has  such  a  relation  to 
the  whole  moral  government  of  God  as  to  make  it 
consistent  with  the  honor  of  his  legislative  and  re-, 
tributive  justice  to  save  all  men,  and  to  make  it 
essential  to  the  highest  honor  of  his  benevolence! 
or  general  justice  to  renew  and  save  some.  There- 
fore it  satisfies  the  law  and  justice  of  God  in  such 
a  sense  as  to  render  it  proper  for  him  to  offer  sal- 
vation to  all  men,  bestow  it  upon  all  who  will  ac- 
cept it,  and  cause  those  to  accept  it  for  whom  the 
interests  of  the  universe  will  allow  him  to  inter- 
pose his  regenerating  grace."  Dr.  Dana  represents 
Prof.  Park  as  "maintaining  that  it  cannot  be  said 
Christ's  passive  obedience  frees  us  from  punish- 
ment, and  that  in  case  of  the  penitent  the  de- 
mands of  the  law  are  evaded  or  waved."*  Prof. 
Park  would  hardly  take  exception  to  the  doctrine 
of  Dr.  Murdock's  sermon. 

Tract  No.  8  of  the  series  issued  by  the  Doctrinal 
Book  and  Tract  Society,  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage : — "  God  has  provided  a  full  and  complete 
atonement  for  all  the  sins  of  all  mankind."  "  The 
atonement  of  Christ  is  sufficient  for  all,  offered  to 
all,  and  irrespective  of  the  divine  purpose  as  to 
its  effectual  application  made   as   much  for  one 

*  Remonstrance,  p.  9 


84 


man  as  another."  "  It  has  never  yet  been  proved 
that  Christ  died  exclusively  for  the  elect."  These 
testimonies  justify  us  in  concluding  that  while 
some  may  hold  to  an  atonement  such  as  is  taught 
in  the  Confession  and  Catechisms,  the  prevailing 
theology  teaches  rather  a  symbolical  transaction, 
efficacious  in  securing  the  salvation  of  none,  but 
only  in  opening  up  the  way  for  the  consistent  ex- 
ercise of  mercy  on  God's  part,  and  which  has  of 
course  the  same  favorable  aspect  on  the  non-elect 
as  the  elect. 


VIII.   Regeneration,  Conversion,  Effectual  Calling, 

That  change  by  which  the  sinner  is  united  to 
Christ  is  in  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  termed 
"  effectual  calling."  This  phrase  has  gone  very 
much  out  of  use  in  New  England.  "  Regenera- 
tion "  and  "  conversion  "  are  more  commonly  em- 
ployed. Dr.  Pond  says  : — "  Our  ministers  do  not 
merge  regeneration  in  effectual  calling."  The 
Confession  of  Faith  states  the  doctrine  on  this 
subject  in  the  following  terms  : — "  All  the  elect, 
God  is  pleased,  effectually  to  call,  by  his  word 
and  Spirit  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in 
which  they  are  by  nature  to  grace  and  salvation 
by  Jesus  Christ;  enlightening  their  minds  spirit- 
ually and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of 
God  ;  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone  and  giving 
them  a  heart  of  flesh;  renewing- their  wills  and  by 


85 


his  almighty  power  determining  them  to  that 
which  is  good  and  effectually  drawing  them  to 
Jesus  Christ,  yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely,  be- 
ing made  willing  by  his  grace."  "  Man  is  alto- 
gether passive  therein,  until,  being  quickened  and 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled 
to  answer  this  call  and  to  embrace  the  grace  offer- 
ed and  conveyed  in  it."*  Such  was  the  ancient 
doctrine  of  New  England.  Dwight  and  Woods, 
together  with  those  who  hold  the  old  doctrine 
of  a  depraved  nature  antecedent  to  sinful  actions, 
still  maintain,  substantially,  the  same  principles. 
Those,  however,  who  with  the  New  Haven  and 
Andover  men  deny  antecedent  depravity  hold  pe- 
culiar views  as  to  regeneration.  The  New  Haven 
divines  maintain  that  the  term  regeneration  is  to 
be  understood  in  two  senses — the  theological  and 
popular.  In  the  first  sense  it  denotes  a  change  in 
the  governing  purpose  of  the  mind ;  and  is  that 
act  of  the  mind,  by  which  the  sinner,  prompted 
by  self-love,  chooses  God  as  his  portion  or  chief 
good.  In  the  last  or  popular  sense,  it  denotes  a 
process,  or  series  of  acts  and  states  of  mind,  and 
includes  all  those  acts  which  they  denominate 
"  Using  the  means  of  regeneration."  They  main- 
tain that  antecedent  to  regeneration,  in  the  re- 
stricted or  theological  sense,  the  selfish  principle 
is  suspended  in  the  sinner's  heart,  that  the  sinner 
then  ceases  to  sin,  and  is  in  a  state  of  neutrality, 

*  Chap.  X :  Sect.  1  and  2. 


86 


and  that  in  this  state  he  uses  the  means  of  regen- 
eration with  motives  which  are  neither  right  nor 
wrong — he  takes  into  solemn  consideration  the 
question  whether  the  highest  happiness  is  to  be 
found  in  God  or  in  the  world — he  pursues  this 
inquiry  until  it  results  in  the  conviction  that  such 
happiness  is  to  be  found  in  God  only.  He  follows 
up  the  conviction  with  engrossing  contemplation, 
till  he  discovers  an  excellence  in  divine  objects 
which  excites  him  to  make  desperate  efforts  to 
give  his  heart  to  God;  and  in  this  process  of 
thought,  of  effort,  and  of  action,  he  perseveres  till 
it  results  in  a  change  of  heart.  Thus  they,  in 
fact,  represent  regeneration  as  a  gradual  and  pro- 
gressive work.  They  also  maintain  that  the  sin- 
ner may  so  resist  the  grace  of  God  as  to  render  it 
impossible  for  God  to  convert  him.  That  this  re- 
presentation is  correct,  will  be  abundantly  evident 
to  any  one  who  will  carefully  examine  the  Chris- 
tian Spectator  for  1829,  pp.  16,  17,  18,  19,  32,  33, 
227.  They  deny,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  that 
there  is  any  change  in  the  nature  or  disposition  of 
the  sinner  antecedent  to  the  exercise  of  right  af- 
fections. "  As  to  those  who  hold  to  the  infusion 
of  something  into  the  soul  previous,  either  in  the 
order  of  time  or  nature  to  the  first  right  affection, 
and  as  a  sort  of  fountain  from  which  such  affec- 
tion is  to  flow,  we  should  only  say,  that  although 
we  do  not  impute  to  them  the  blasphemy,  yet  we 
cannot  wholly  acquit  them  of  the  absurdity  of 
Gibbon,  who,  in  pretending  to  describe  the  man- 


87 


ner  in  which  the  primitive  teachers  were  inspired, 
says  they  were  mere  organs  of  the  Spirit,  just  as 
the  pipe  or  flute  is  of  him  who  blows  it."*  They 
admit  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration, 
yet  they  maintain  that  its  influence  is  altogether 
persuasive,  exerted  through  the  medium  of  truth 
or  motives.  "  Indeed  we  know,"  say  they,  "  of  no 
other  effectual  hold  which  this  divine  agent  can 
have  on  the  sinner,  whom  he  would  turn  from  the 
error  of  his  ways,  but  that  which  consists  in  so 
bringing  the  truths  of  the  Bible  into  contact  with 
his  understanding  and  sensibilities  that  he  shall 
voluntarily  shun  the  threatened  evil,  and  choose 
the  proffered  good."f  "  This  influence  he  can  re- 
sist, and  thus  harden  his  heart  against  God."f 
"  Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  all  possi- 
ble preventing  influence."§  "I  do  not  believe," 
says  Dr.  Taylor,  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Hawes,  "that 
the  grace  of  God  can  be  truly  said  to  be  irresisti- 
ble in  the  primary,  proper  import  of  the  term  : 
but  I  do  believe  that  in  all  cases  it  may  be  resist- 
ed by  man  as  a  free  agent ;  and  that  when  it  does 
become  effectual  to  conversion,  it  is  unresisted" 
Such,  substantially,  are  the  views  of  Finney, 
(who  is  understood  to  speak  the  sentiments  of  the 
New  Haven  divines,)  as  set  forth  in  his  sermon 
entitled  "  Sinners  bound  to  change  their  own 
hearts."  As  far  therefore  as  the  theology  of  New 
Haven  extends  this  is  the  doctrine  which  prevails. 

*  Christ.  Spect.  1833,  p.  361.    f  D>-  P-  356.    t  lb.  1931,  p.  637.    J  lb.  1930,  p.  563. 


Dr.  Dana  intimates  that  Prof.  Park  regards  it  as 
a  change  in  the  balance  of  the  susceptibilities.* 
The  Professor  himself  declares  that  in  regenera- 
tion a  nature  inclining  to  sin,  but  not  sinful,  is 
changed  into  a  nature  inclining  to  holiness,  but 
not  holy,  and  that  by  the  omnipotence  of  the  re- 
generating Spirit.f  The  editors  of  the  Congrega- 
tionalist,  after  quoting  from  Calvinistic  divines, 
with  the  view  of  exhibiting  the  Old  School  doc- 
trine on  this  subject,  reason  thus: — "The  state- 
ments which  precede  will  enable  any  one  to  judge 
how  great  is  the  change  which  has  taken  place 
among  many  New  England  divines  on  this  point. 
It  amounts  to  an  entire  revolution.  The  theory 
of  passivity  in  regeneration  has  been  rejected,  and 
the  Synergistic  theory  adopted  in  its  place.  Of 
this  we  have  a  striking  illustration  in  the  tracts 
written  by  various  New  England  divines  for  the 
Doctrinal  Tract  Society.  On  p.  3,  of  No.  27,  it  is 
taught  that  the  Scriptures  represent  men  '  as  act- 
ing and  being  acted  upon  in  their  regeneration  or 
conversion.'  On  p.  7  there  is  an  argument  against 
such  as  hold  that  man  is  <  merely  passive  in  regen- 
eration.' On  p.  15  it  is  said,  '  The  sinner  is  not 
passive,  but  active  in  regeneration.'  In  Tract  No. 
3,  the  ascription  to  the  orthodox  of  the  doctrine 
that  regeneration  is  'the  sole  act  of  God  '  is  treated 
as  a  slander,  and  the  doctrine  is  taught  that  God 
renovates  us  '  by  the  use  of  means  and  motives 

*  Remonstrance,  p.  8.       f  Bib-  Sacra,  XXXI.  p.  627. 


89 


which  leave  us  as  free  in  conversion  and  new  obe- 
dience as  we  ever  were  in  transgression.'  "*  In  a 
subsequent  number  they  affirm  that  Dr.  Woods 
and  Dr.  Tyler  coincided  in  teaching  that  man  is 
active  and  cooperates  with  God  in  regeneration, 
and  thus  are  at  variance  with  the  Westminster 
divines  ;  but  nevertheless  stand  on  the  platform  of 
sound  and  orthodox  New  England  divines.  They 
also  labor  to  show  that  Jonathan  Edwards  taught 
the  same  doctrine.f 

Rev.  Mr.  Eells,  of  Newburyport,  thus  forcibly 
describes  the  prevalent  theology  on  this  subject: — 
"  It  is  action  only  that  needs  renovation.  '  Regen- 
eration is  a  change  from  sinful  action  to  holy  ac- 
tion/ '  All  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  re- 
duced to  mere  persuasion.  He  may  bring  the  truth 
home  with  power  on  the  understanding  and  con- 
science, but  he  cannot  change  the  heart.  And,  in- 
deed, there  is  no  heart  to  be  changed.  After  all 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  it  remains  in  the  power  of 
man  to  yield  or  refuse,  as  he  pleases,  so  that  the 
glory  of  the  change  is  all  his  own.  It  is  not  God 
that  makes  men  to  differ.  It  is  their  own  work.'  | 
These  are  the  doctrines  taught  by  professors  of  the- 
ology— that  are  preached  from  the  pulpit  in  this 
land  of  the  Pilgrims.  The  evil  is  wide-spread, 
and  is  fast  extending  itself.  This  is  an  undenia- 
ble truths  % 

*  April  12, 1850.  t  Dec.  19,  1851.         %  Sermons,  p.  36,  37. 

8* 


90 


These  testimonies  will  enable  the  reader  to  un- 
derstand the  views  of  regeneration  and  conversion 
that  prevail  in  New  England. 


IX.    Justification. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  teaches  that:  "Those 
whom  God  effectually  calleth  he  also  freely  justi- 
fieth  ;  not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them, 
but  by  pardoning  their  sins  and  by  accounting 
and  accepting  their  persons  as  righteous ;  not  for 
any  thing  wrought  in  them  or  done  by  them,  but 
for  Christ's  sake  alone;  not  by  imputing  faith  it- 
self, the  act  of  believing,  or  any  other  evangelical 
obedience  to  them  as  their  righteousness ;  but  by 
imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ 
unto  them,  they  receiving  and  resting  on  him  and 
his  righteousness  by  faith  ;  which  faith  they  have 
not  of  themselves :  it  is  the  gift  of  God."*  The 
Catechism  defines  justification  as  "an  act  of 
God's  free  grace,  whereby  he  pardoneth  all  our 
sins,  and  accepts  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight  only 
for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  and 
received  by  faith  alone."f  There  is  no  difficulty 
in  understanding  the  doctrine  of  these  proposi- 
tions. It  is  clear  and  well  defined.  This  too  was 
the  primitive  doctrine  among  the  churches  of  New 
England.     The  Synods  of  1648  and  1680  affirmed 

*  Confession,  Chap.  XI.  Sec.  1.  f  Ques.  33. 


91 


it.  Norton,  and  Willard,  and  Edwards,  and  Bel- 
lamy all  taught  it.  Nor  can  a  charge  of  heresy  on 
this  point  be  made  good  against  Hopkins.  But 
what  is  the  present  faith  of  New  England  ?  We 
must  learn  it  from  the  teachings  of  her  leading 
Doctors. 

Dr.  Woods,  after  examining  minutely  the  Scrip- 
tures which  speak  of  justification,  concludes  thus  : 
"  And  we  are  sure  the  apostle  meant  to  teach  us 
this  momentous  doctrine,  namely,  that  sinners 
cannot  be  justified  by  works  of  obedience  to  the 
law  ;  that  if  we  are  justified,  it  must  be  by  grace, 
on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  re- 
ceived by  faith  ;  and  that  good  works,  however 
important  or  indispensable  on  other  accounts,  are 
excluded  from  any  influence  as  the  meritorious 
ground  of  our  justification  before  God."*  He 
speaks  of  God  treating  men  in  justification  as 
though  they  had  never  sinned,  as  though  they 
were  not  ungodly.  The  mediatorial  work  of 
Christ — his  obedience  and  death — he  represents 
as  the  ground  or  meritorious  condition  of  our  for- 
giveness and  acceptance  with  God.  Our  perfect 
obedience  would,  according  to  the  law,  have  been 
the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God  and  en- 
joyment of  the  blessings  of  his  kingdom.  This 
ground  of  acceptance  is  wanting.  But  the  obe- 
dience and  death  of  our  Redeemer  come  in  place 
of  it,  and  on  this  ground  we  enjoy  the  same  favor 

♦Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  165. 


92 


with  God  and  the  same  blessedness  as  we  should 
have  done  on  the  ground  of  our  own  obedience.* 
Christ's  work  as  Redeemer  does,  alone,  form  the 
perfect,  meritorious  condition,  or  ground  of  our  jus- 
tification before  God,  nothing  else  being  needed  or 
admitted  as  a  condition  or  any  part  of  a  condition 
in  that  respect.^  He  makes  some  interesting  re- 
marks in  relation  to  justification  through  the  im- 
puted righteousness  of  Christ.  He  affirms  it  to  be 
the  doctrine  of  orthodox  Protestants  generally. 
"  Yet,"  he  says,  "  this  doctrine,  or  rather  this  man- 
ner of  stating  it,  has  for  some  time  past  been  ob- 
jected to  by  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  this  coun- 
try, chiefly  in  New  England.  And  many  minis- 
ters and  laymen,  who  have  not  come  to  a  decision 
on  the  subject,  have  an  apprehension  that  this 
form  of  the  doctrine  must  be  given  up."  The 
reason  of  this  dissent  he  finds  to  be  that  the  doc- 
trine is  thought  to  imply  that  there  is  a  literal 
transfer  of  moral  character  or  personal  attributes 
from  one  to  another.  The  doctrine,  however,  he 
affirms,  never  had  any  such  meaning  as  this. 
There  is  no  reason,  either  from  the  Scriptures  or 
from  standard  Calvinistic  divines,  to  understand 
the  word  impute  in  this  manner.  "When  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  the 
meaning  is  not  that  it  properly  belongs  to  us  as 
our  own  personal  righteousness,  but  that  it  is  so 
reckoned  to  us,  or  put  to  our  account,  that  we 

*  Work?,  Vol.  III.  p.  177.        f  lb.  p.  180. 


93 


share  the  benefits  of  it,  or  are  treated  as  though 
we  were  righteous.  He  pleads  that  the  meaning 
put  upon  the  doctrine  by  some  late  New  England 
divines,  is  unauthorized.  He  says  that  the  most 
learned  and  discriminating  of  orthodox  divines, 
both  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic,  take  special  pains 
to  show  that  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness to  us  does  not  imply  that  his  righteousness  is 
transferred  to  us,  or  infused  into  us,  so  as  to  be- 
come our  personal  attribute,  but  only  that  we  par- 
take of  its  benefit — that  his  righteousness  is  ours 
imputative I 'y.  He  advocates  the  use  of  the  "impu- 
tation "  phraseology,  and  exhorts  his  brethren  to 
hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words.*  This  is  the 
theology  taught  in  Dr.  Woods'  published  lectures. 
Prof.  Stnart,  his  distinguished  colleague  through- 
out his  entire  professorial  career,  did  not  accord 
with  him  entirely  on  this  subject.  His  views  are 
set  forth  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to 
the  Romans.  The  following  extracts  exhibit  them 
fully.  Remarking  on  the  5th  chapter  and  19th 
verse  he  says : — "  Though  I  can  scarcely  entertain 
a  doubt,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  in  this  con- 
nection of  thought  means  in  particular  his  obe- 
dience in  assuming  our  nature  and  his  suffering 
an  expiatory  death  in  it,  yet  I  would  not  exclude 
the  idea  that  the  active  (as  well  as  passive)  obe- 
dience of  his  whole  life  contribute,  yea  was  neces- 
sary to  the  perfection  of  his  character  as  a  Media- 

*  Works,  Vol.  III.  pp.  201,  207. 


94 


tor,  and  a  great  High  Priest  who  should  make 
atonement  for  us.  Without  such  obedience,  he 
would  have  needed  an  atonement  for  himself  in- 
stead of  being  able  to  make  it  for  others.  But  in 
respect  to  the  pacific  allegation,  'that  Christ's 
obedience  is  imputed  to  us  ' :  this  Paul  does  not 
here,  nor  elsewhere,  say,  nor  any  other  sacred 
writer.  This  is  a  phraseology  superinduced  upon 
the  Bible,  many  years  since  the  Reformation,  from 
human  systems  and  methods  of  explanation  ;  and 
not  one  which  is  taken  from  the  Scriptures  and 
transferred  into  symbols.  In  all  the  Bible  there 
occurs  not  such  a  declaration,  as  that  one  maris 
sin  or  righteousness  is  imputed  to  another.  (The 
italics  are  the  Professors).  The  thing  for  sub- 
stance aimed  at  by  many,  who  employ  such 
phraseology  is  doubtless  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
viz.  that  the  obedience  of  Christ,  above  all  his 
obedience  unto  death,  did  contribute  to  constitute 
him  an  all-glorious  and  all-sufficient  Mediator. 
As  to  the  rest,  that  God  for  Christ's  sake  for- 
gives sinners,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto 
them,  is  the  very  sum  and  substance  of  what  is 
appropriately  called  the  Gospel,  and  all  which 
can  exegetically  be  made  out  from  the  simple  in- 
terpretation of  the  Scriptures.  For  in  what  part 
of  the  Bible  is  it  said  that  Christ  obeyed  for  us  ? 
Or  where,  that  his  obedience  is  imputed  to  us? 
And  yet  that  on  our  account  or  in  our  behalf  he 
obeyed  and  suffered,  I  believe  to  be  a  great  and 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gospel." 


95 


In  his  excursus  on  the  same  passage  he  says : 
"  Believers  are  made  really  and  veritably  holy  in  part 
(not  putatively  so)  by  the  sanctifying  influences 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  on  account  of  what  Christ 
has  done  and  suffered ;  so  that  their  holiness  is 
not  in  this  case  factitious,  and  the  Redeemer's  ho- 
liness is  not  veritably  theirs.  If  it  were  so,  then 
perfect  holiness  would  be  theirs ;  and  they  could 
then  present  a  claim  of  salvation  on  the  ground  of 
meeting  the  demands  of  the  law.  Mere  imputed 
holiness,  however,  can  never  answer  proper  legal 
demands,  and  therefore  it  can  never  entitle  the 
sinner  to  a  proper  legal  acquittal.  Pardon  is 
given,  altogether  of  grace ;  not  on  the  ground  of 
either  real  or  factitious,  i.  e.  imputed  obedience. 
The  first  of  these  sinners  cannot  plead  ;  the  second 
the  law  does  not  in  itself  admit.  If  any  one 
should  reply,  as  doubtless  some  may  do,  that 
Christ  is  and  is  called  the  Lord  our  Righteousness, 
my  reply  is  that  he  is  at  the  same  time  called  our 
wisdom,  and  sanctification  and  redemption.  Now 
he  is  by  this  representation  made  just  as  much 
our  imputed  wisdom,  and  our  imputed  sanctifica- 
tion, and  our  imputed  redemption  as  he  is  our 
imputed  righteousness."*  Prof.  Stuart  objects  very 
emphatically  to  the  language  of  the  Westminster 
standards  on  the  subject.  He  can  hardly,  how- 
ever, be  regarded  as  still  holding  the  same  doc- 
trine.    He    uniformly   speaks    of  justification    as 

*  Commentary,  p,  583. 


96 


gratuitous.  An  expression  above  quoted  well  sets 
forth  his  uniform  teachings :  "  Pardon  is  given  al- 
together of  grace  not  on  the  ground  of  either  real 
or  imputed  obedience."  When  therefore  he  teaches 
us  that  God  forgives  sinners  for  Chrisfs  sake,  we 
are  not  to  understand  him  as  meaning  that  what 
Christ  has  done  and  suffered  is  the  ground  on 
which  he  proceeds.  The  Professor's  doctrine  is 
about  this :  Christ  by  his  atonement,  for  making 
which  his  holy  life  was  a  necessary  qualification, 
removed  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  God's  sav- 
ing sinners,  and  now  God;  in  the  exercise  of  his 
sovereign  mercy,  bestows  pardon  and  acceptance 
on  the  believer,  without  any  particular  respect  to 
a  law  satisfying  righteousness  as  the  ground  of 
his  procedure.  His  influence  is  doubtless  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  ancient  doctrine  of  New  England,  set 
forth  in  the  Westminster  symbols. 

Professor  Murdock,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Atone- 
ment, set  forth  his  views  of  justification  : — "Justi- 
fication is  not  founded  on  the  principles  of  law 
and  distributive  justice.  It  is  an  absolute  pardon, 
an  act  of  mere  grace  ;  and  of  grace  on  the  part  of 
God  the  Father,  as  well  as  on  that  of  God  the  Son. 
For  the  operation  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  it  appears, 
was  not  on  the  regular  course  of  distributive  jus- 
tice in  regard  to  individual  transgressors.  Its  in- 
fluence was  on  the  public  feeling  respecting  the 
character  of  God.  And  it  only  enabled  God,  with 
honor  to  himself,  and  safety  to  his  kingdom,  to 
gratify  the  desires  of  his  heart  by  the  pardon  of 


97 


repenting  sinners.  Justification  is  therefore  a  real 
departure  from  the  regular  course  of  justice  ;  and 
such  a  departure  from  it  as  leaves  the  claims  of 
the  law  on  the  persons  justified,  forever  unsatis- 
fied."* The  views  of  Murdock  and  Stuart  were 
about  the  same.  Their  methods  of  statement 
may  differ ;  but  not  their  doctrine.  Diverse  the- 
ologies, on  this  subject,  must  have  been  taught  at 
Andover  from  the  foundation  of  the  Seminary. 

Nor  does  Dr.  Dwight's  exhibition  of  this  doc- 
trine come  up  to  the  ancient  standards.  To  say 
the  least  of  it,  it  is  exceedingly  defective.  Gospel 
justification  is  not  forensic  in  its  nature ;  it  only 
closely  resembles  it ;  so  thinks  Dr.  Dwight.  "  It 
consists,"  says  he,  "  in  the  three  following  things  : 
Pardoning  the  believer's  sins,  acquitting  him  from 
the  punishment  which  they  have  deserved,  and  en- 
titling him  to  the  rewards  or  blessings  due  by  law 
to  perfect  obedience  only."f  All  these  are  given 
to  the  sinner  out  of  the  free  and  sovereign  love  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — given  without 
respect  to  any  ground  or  consideration  on  which 
the  act  proceeds,  but  simply  of  divine  grace.  The 
work  of  Christ  was  efficient  in  removing  the  ob- 
stacles in  the  way  of  such  procedure,  and  in  doing 
no  more.  According  to  his  views  of  the  subject, 
he  cannot  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness ;  and  hence  very  properly 
banishes  it  from  his  system.     Dwight's  justifica- 

*  p.  30.  f  Dwight's  Theology,  Vol.  II.  p.  301. 

9 


98 


tion  is  without  any  righteousness  whatever.  It 
must  be  admitted,  however,  that  he  carefully 
guards  against  the  idea  of  justification  being 
grounded  on  human  merit.  He  clearly  and  fully 
teaches  it  to  be  of  grace.  Nor  does  he  make  faith 
itself  the  righteousness.  He  represents  it  as  being 
only  that  on  the  exercise  of  which  these  blessings 
are  given.* 

Dr.  Emmons  also  taught  a  doctrine  on  this  sub- 
ject, far  different  from  that  of  the  Catechism. 
Justification,  in  his  judgment,  "  signifies  no  more 
nor  less  than  the  pardon  or  remission  of  sin."f 
He  represents  it  at  one  time  as  an  act,  taking 
place  the  moment  the  sinner  believes.  Again,  he 
speaks  of  it  as  conditional  on  perseverance  in 
faith  and  obedience,  (which  condition  is  by  divine 
grace  always  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  every  genuine 
believer,)  and  uses  language  which  would  seem  to 
teach  the  doctrine  that  justification  is  not  com- 
plete until  death,  or  until  the  required  conditions 
are  actually  fulfilled.^  He  further  teaches  that 
forgiveness  comes  through  the  mediation  of  Christ, 
and  is  on  the  ground  of  his  atonement — that  God 
bestows  no  other  favor  on  man  on  this  ground — 
that  other  blessings  are  bestowed  in  consequence 
of  the  atonement,  not  on  the  ground  of  it — a  sin- 
ner being  pardoned  for  Christ's  sake  is  in  a  fit 
state  for  receiving  other  spiritual  blessings  on 
other  grounds.     He   contended   that   there   is   no 

*  Dwight's  Theology,  Vol.  II.  p.  300,324.    t  Works,  Vol.  V.  p.  44.    %  lb.  p.  46. 


99 


propriety  in  directing  sinners  to  go  to  Christ  for 
regenerating  or  sanctifying  grace,  or  for  any  thing 
but  pardon,  which  is  all  that  ministers  have  any 
authority  to  offer  sinners  through  Christ.*  The 
distinction  of  Christ's  obedience  into  active  and 
passive  he  pronounced  unscriptural.  The  doc- 
trine that  believers  are  accepted  as  righteous,  and 
entitled  to  eternal  life,  on  the  ground  of  Christ's 
imputed  righteousness,  he  rejected  as  unreasona- 
ble and  absurd.  Imputation  found  no  favor  in  his 
eyes.  Eternal  life,  and  all  its  implied  blessings, 
are  bestowed,  according  to  his  teachings,  as  the 
reward  of  the  believer's  own  sincere  obedience. 
God  does  not,  he  holds,  bestow  eternal  life  on  be- 
lievers because  their  sincere  obedience  atones  for 
their  sin,  or  because  it  merits  eternal  life,  but  be- 
cause it  is  a  proper  ground,  reason,  or  condition, 
for  bestowing  on  them  such  a  gracious  and  un- 
merited reward.f  The  doctrine  that  believers  are 
rewarded,  or  receive  eternal  life,  for  Christ's  obe- 
dience, as  really  and  truly  as  they  are  forgiven  for 
his  atonement,  he  pronounces  a  palpable  absurd- 
ity."%  Such  are  the  views  of  the  "  Sage  of 
Franklin  "  in  relation  to  the  great  matter  of  man's 
justification. 

Prof.  Park,  according  to  Dr.  Dana,  teaches  "  that 
Christ  needed  obedience  for  himself,  and  could  not 
perform  a  work  of  supererogation  for  others;  that 
if  Christ  obeyed  the  law  for  us  we  need   not  obey 

*  Works,  Vol.  V.  p.  46,  47.       t  lb.  p.  84,  86.       t  lb.  p-  93. 


100 


it  for  ourselves,  for  that  the  law  does  not  require 
two  obediences ;  neither  in  this  case  is  there  any 
grace  in  our  pardon ;  that  Christ's  obedience  be- 
ing imputed  to  us  involves  a  double  absurdity, 
etc."*  We  much  regret  that  we  have  not  access 
to  any  full  statement  of  the  Professor's  views  on 
this  subject.  Pr.  Dana's  testimony  is,  however, 
worthy  of  all  confidence. 

Mr.  Eells  says,  in  his  Sermons,  that  the  ancient 
doctrine  of  justification  is  almost  wholly  unknown 
among  the  descendants  of  the  Puritans  ;  and  that 
men  in  high  places  in  the  church  seem  to  find 
a  malignant  pleasure,  first,  in  carricaturing  it, 
and  then  in  holding  it  up  to  derision  and  con- 
tempt.f 

There  are  those  who  truly  hold  the  doctrine  of 
the  Westminster  standards  on  this  subject,  and 
state  it  in  the  language  there  employed ;  there  are 
those,  again,  who  accept  the  Westminster  doc- 
trine, but  reject  the  Westminster  phraseology,  a 
class,  smaller,  it  is  thought,  than  many  good  men 
are  willing  to  admit ;  the  prevailing  theology, 
however,  it  is  believed,  rejects  both  the  ancient 
phraseology  and  the  ancient  doctrine ;  it  teaches 
neither  a  justification  by  works,  nor  a  justification 
on  the  ground  of  Christ's  righteousness,  but  a  jus- 
tification, purely  gratuitous,  without  direct  respect 
to  any  righteousness  whatever. 

*  Remonstrance,  p.  9.  f  Sermons,  p.  33. 


101 


We  have  thus  endeavored  to  give  a  candid  ex- 
hibition of  the  Theology  of  New  England  in  rela- 
tion to  Inspiration,  Election,  Man's  connection 
with  Adam,  Sin  and  Depravity,  Inability,  Regen- 
eration Conversion  or  Effectual  Calling,  the 
Atonement  and  Justification — the  great  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel.  No  more  is  needed,  we  conceive, 
to  exhibit  the  peculiarities  of  the  Theology  of 
New  England,  although  there  are  still  other  points, 
which  it  would  be  interesting  to  pass  under  re- 
view. 

What,  then,  is  the  conclusion  of  the  whole 
matter?  It  seems  to  be  this: — There  are  some 
among  the  orthodox  of  New  Englaud,  who  hold 
and  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  as  held  and  taught  by  the  puri- 
tan fathers.  This  class  it  is  to  be  feared  is  not 
numerous. 

There  is  another  section  of  the  orthodox,  which 
must  be  regarded  as  holding  and  teaching,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  the  Arminianism  of  John 
Wesley.  This  class  is  increasing.  The  tendency 
of  things  seems  to  be  to  sink  all  doctrinal  differ- 
ences between  Wesleyans  and  Calvinians. 

That  theology,  however,  which  claims  to  be 
the  theology  of  New  England,  embraces  the  great 
middle  class.  It  teaches  the  decrees  of  God,  a 
particular  providence,  election,  and  the  persever- 
ance of  the  saints,  as  taught  by  Calvinists  gener- 
ally. It  rejects  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  and 
Christ's  righteousness,  and  a  limited,  efficacious 


102 


atonement.  It  asserts  that  man's  ability  is  com- 
mensurate with  his  responsibility,  and  that  his  in- 
ability consists  altogether  in  his  unwillingness. 
On  these  points  the  great  mass  of  New  England 
divines  seem  to  be  agreed.  As  to  the  doctrine  of 
sin,  depravity,  and  regeneration,  there  exists  a  di- 
versity of  opinion.  Some  hold  to  a  depravity  of 
nature  antecedent  to  actual  sin,  and  to  a  regenera- 
tion by  the  Spirit,  in  which  man  is  altogether  pas- 
sive. Others  reject  the  doctrine  of  a  sinful  na- 
ture ;  assert  that  all  sin  consists  in  unholy  or  sin- 
ful exercises  ;  and  teach  a  regeneration,  which  is 
but  a  change  in  the  governing  purpose  of  the 
soul,  or  of  the  balance  of  the  susceptibilities,  or 
of  a  nature  to  sin,  but  not  sinful,  into  a  nature  to 
holiness,  but  not  holy.  This  is  the  theology  of 
New  Haven,  Andover,  and  probably  of  Bangor 
also — the  theology  of  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra," 
the  great  New  England  quarterly — the  theology 
of  the  Congregationalist — the  theology,  in  short, 
of  the  influences  that  to  a  great  extent  control 
and  determine  public  opinion  all  over  the  coun- 
try— the  theology,  it  is  claimed,  and  would  seem 
with  good  reason,  of  a  very  large  majority  of  New 
England  divines. 

The  prevailing  theology  in  New  England,  at 
present,  does  not  appear  to  be  the  theology  of  the 
Puritans. 

It  will  hardly  be  denied  by  any,  that  the  pre- 
ceding statements  are,  in  the  main  at  least,  cor- 
rect.    It  may,  however,  be  said,  that  these  differ- 


103 


ences  are  of  little,  very  little  importance ;  the 
great  essentials  are  held  in  common  by  both  par- 
ties. While  it  is  joyfully  conceded,  that  much 
valuable  truth  is  held  even  by  those  whose  views 
are  most  erroneous,  it  cannot,  we  think,  be  admit- 
ted consistently  with  truth,  that  the  differences 
specified  are  unimportant.  The  old  and  the  new 
are  not  the  same — either  in  their  principles  or 
their  influence.  If  the  one  is  truth,  the  other,  in 
so  far  as  it  is  another,  is  error.  If  the  one  is  meat 
and  drink  to  the  soul,  the  other  is  spiritual  poi- 
son. Whoever  carefully  examines  these  systems 
of  doctrine,  will  see  at  once  that  in  relation  to 
some  of  the  most  momentous  subjects  that  con- 
cern man's  salvation,  they  are  antagonistic.  It 
cannot  then  be  of  little  moment  which  is  received 
into  the  heart,  or  which  is  proclaimed  from  our 
pulpits. 

There  is  prevalent  intense  indifference  to  doc- 
trinal truth.  A  popular  liberality  smiles  compla- 
cently on  every  form  of  religious  belief  (except 
old  fashioned  orthodoxy.)  and  insists  that  one  is 
just  about  as  good  as  another.  It  is  further  to  b^ 
feared,  that  there  is  very  little,  earnest,  thorough, 
discriminating  preaching  of  the  truth,  even  as  far 
as  it  is  professedly  received ;  that  many  subjects 
of  vital  importance  to  the  soul,  are  seldom  men- 
tioned in  the  pulpit ; — that  many  dangerous  errors 
abound,  against  which,  the  warning  voice  of  the 
watchmen  on  Zion's  walls  is  seldom  lifted.  This 
state  of  things  is  far  from  consistent  with   that 


104 


importance  every  where  attached  to  doctrinal 
truth  in  God's  word.  Our  Savior  thought  it 
necessary  to  caution  his  disciples  in  very  pointed 
terms  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees.  Paul  reminded  Timothy  that,  "  All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of 
God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works,"  at  the  same  time  exhorting  him 
to  "  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words  "  he  had  re- 
ceived, and  warning  him  against  those  who  would 
not  endure  sound  doctrine,  but  would,  after  their 
own  lusts,  heap  to  themselves  teachers,  having 
itching  ears.  The  same  apostle  must  have  thought 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  of  momentous  impor- 
tance when  he  thus  wrote  the  Galatians  :  "  But 
though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any 
other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  As  we 
said  before  so  say  I  now  again,  if  any  man  preach 
any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have  re- 
ceived let  him  be  accursed."  John,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  elect,  lady  expresses  similar  views : — 
u  Whosoever  transgresseth  and  abideth  not  in  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  hath  not  God.  If  there  come 
any  unto  you  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive 
him  not  into  your  house  neither  bid  him  God 
speed  ;  for  he  that  biddeth  him  God  speed  is  par- 
taker of  his  evil  deeds."  There  is  set  forth  in 
God's   word   a   system,   called   at  one  time,  the 


105 


"  Gospel,"  at  another  the  "  Truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus," 
at  another  the  "  Doctrine  of  Christ,"  and  at  still 
another  the  "  Word  of  God."  To  this  system  of 
truth  the  Scriptures  continually  attach  the  very 
first  importance.  It  is  the  sword  of  the  Spirit — 
the  wisdom  of  God  and  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion. It  is  this  which  the  Spirit  uses  in  convert- 
ing the  sinner,  and  in  sanctifying  and  comforting 
the  people  of  God.  Nothing  else  is  the  sword  of 
the  Spirit;  nothing  else  is  the  means  of  effect- 
ing the  salvation  of  souls.  God  does  not  bless 
error.  Nor  does  he  honor  a  diluted,  or  a  muti- 
lated gospel.  No  other  truth,  however  important, 
can  accomplish  the  ends  for  which  God  has  or- 
dained the  gospel  of  his  grace.  It  alone  will  re- 
form what  is  wrong  among  men,  and  save  souls 
from  eternal  misery. 

If  these  things  be  true,  as  they  are  beyond  all 
controversy,  then  that  indifference  and  that  liber- 
ality already  mentioned  must  be  simply  criminal 
in  God's  sight.  If  there  is  any  thing  in  this  world 
about  which  the  church  ought  to  be  jealous,  it  is 
the  purity,  fulness  and  completeness  of  the  doc- 
trine proclaimed  in  our  pulpits  and  issued  from 
our  press.  If  souls  are  converted  and  sanctified — 
edified  to  the  highest  degree — the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 
must  be  learned.  Those  who  substitute  something 
else  for  it,  give  famishing  souls  a  stone  instead  of 
bread.  Those  who  keep  back  a  part  are  unfaithful 
to  their  Master,  who  has  bidden  them  declare  the 


106 


whole  counsel  of  God.  Those  who  abandon  im- 
portant truth,  leaving  error  to  abound  unopposed, 
must  be  regarded  as  traitors  to  their  Lord.  If  ever 
the  world  is  converted  and  the  reign  of  righteous- 
ness inaugurated,  it  will  not  be  by  leaving  out  of 
sight  the  truth  of  the  gospel — nor  by  abandoning 
whatever  of  it  is  offensive  to  the  carnal  mind — nor 
by  the  preaching  of  error  ; — not  even  by  the  pro- 
clamation of  other  truth  however  important.  It 
is  only  a  pure  gospel  in  its  integrity — proclaimed 
with  the  simplicity  with  which  it  is  set  forth  in 
the  inspired  volume,  that  will  be  the  means  of 
ushering  in  that  glorious  era.  Most  assuredly  the 
church,  styled  the  pillar  and  the  ground  of  the  truth 
is  called  upon  to  look  well  to  the  truth,  it  is  her 
duty  to  maintain  and  propagate. 

Let  us  then  search  the  Scriptures.  Let  us  go  to 
the  great  Teacher  and  find  out  the  truth.  Let  us 
hold  it  fast.  Let  us  feed  upon  it  ourselves.  Let 
us  send  it — the  bread  and  water  of  life — to  the  per- 
ishing world  around  us.  Let  us  give  our  influence 
to  the  support  and  propagation  of  a  pure  gospel. 
Let  no  maxims  of  worldly  prudence,  no  false  liber- 
ality, induce  us  to  aid  in  building  up  the  cause  of 
error.  Let  us  consent  to  no  theology  so  "  compre- 
hensive "  as  to  embrace  both  truth  and  falsehood. 
Let  us  not  be  "  children  tossed  to  and  fro  and  car- 
ried about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the 
sleight  of  men  and  cunning  craftiness  whereby 
they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive ;  but  speaking  the  truth 
in  love,  grow  up  into  him  in  all  things  which  is 
the  head  even  Christ." 


Date  Due 


£JE5      | 

^u^miwm^ 

-  ,— *•   "T"    -"' 

""jMNMMp 

i 

i 

1 
1 

i 

I 

! 

1 

<§) 

